ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Polo Club Düsseldorf v EUIPO — Company Bridge and Life (POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976)

(Case T-355/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark POLO CLUB, DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976 - Earlier national figurative mark POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Company Bridge and Life, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and D. Gómez Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG, seeks, in essence, the annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 April 2021 (Case R 1667/2020-1) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by Company Bridge and Life, SL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — TL v Commission

(Case T-438/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew the contract - Vacancy notice - Manifest error of assessment - Duty of care - Psychological harassment - Liability)

(2022/C 359/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant, TL, seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 29 October 2020 not to renew her contract of employment and, so far as necessary, of the decision of 20 April 2021 rejecting her complaint brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against that decision and, secondly, compensation in respect of the damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENČKI HRAM)

(Case T-284/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark RENČKI HRAM - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 340/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

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 Court: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 1050/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

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 23 March 2021 (Case R 1050/2020-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Migadakis v ENISA

(Case T-507/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest - Video examination - Minimum points threshold - Equality of treatment - Whether marking was objective)

(2022/C 418/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Migadakis (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (represented by: I. Taurina, G. Pappa and C. Chalanouli, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbauer, lawyer)

Re:

By his action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks to have set aside the decision of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) of 30 October 2020 not to accept his application.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr. Ioannis Migadakis is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-700/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 418/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 August 2021 (Case R 117/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Voco GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — SV v EIB

(Case T-311/21) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Performance appraisal - Promotion - Administrative review - Special procedure applicable to appraisal decisions - Rule of correspondence between the administrative review and the subsequent application - Intensity of the review - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Liability)

(2022/C 463/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SV (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant, seeks, first, annulment of his 2019 Performance Document and of the subsequent decisions adopted in the context of the special procedure for administrative review applicable to the appraisal decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, secondly, compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Blueroots Technology v EUIPO — Rezk-Salama and Breitlauch (SKILLTREE STUDIOS)

(Case T-607/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SKILLTREE STUDIOS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive 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))

(2022/C 432/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Blueroots Technology GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Huber-Erlenwein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Christof Rezk-Salama (Trier, Germany), Linda Breitlauch (Trier) (represented by: F. Weber, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2021 (Case R 2218/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Blueroots Technology GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi)

(Case T-222/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - EU figurative mark Shoppi - Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit))

(2022/C 463/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shopify Inc. (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi (Fiano, Italy), Salvatore Vacante, (Berlin, Germany), Shoppi Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Roth and A. Hogertz, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 February 2021 (Case R 785/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Shopify Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)

(Case T-539/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative mark airframe - Absolute grounds for refusal - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case: R 63/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022 — Lemken v EUIPO (shade of sky blue)

(Case T-621/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of sky blue - Absolute grounds for refusal - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 7/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lemken GmbH & Co. KG (Alpen, Germany) (represented by: I. Kuschel and W. von der Osten-Sacken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 July 2021 (Case: R 2037/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lemken GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Representation of angular lines in black and white)

(Case T-501/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing angular lines in black and white - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 472/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Georgieva, E. Nicolás Gómez, M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 79/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach v EUIPO — Neng (Fohlenelf)

(Case T-747/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Fohlenelf - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a), Article 94(1) and Article 97(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 35/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kitzberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: David Neng (Brüggen, Germany) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Case R 2126/2020-4).

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 28 September 2021 (Case R 2126/2020-4) in so far as proof of genuine use of EU word mark Fohlenelf was rejected in relation to ‘soaps’ in Class 3, ‘self-adhesive films of paper or plastic, self-adhesive labels’ in Class 16, ‘porcelain and earthenware’ in Class 21, as well as in relation to ‘drinking bottles’, in so far as they constitute a subcategory of goods within ‘household or kitchen containers’ also in Class 21, ‘bath towels of textile’ in Class 24 and ‘games, toys’ in Class 28;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission

(Case T-158/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ - Commission communication setting out the reasons for not adopting the proposals for legal acts contained in the European citizens’ initiative - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 15/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (represented by T. Hieber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by I. Martínez del Peral, I. Rubene, E. Stamate and D. Drambozova, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by T. Papadopoulou, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by E. Drugda, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Communication C(2021) 171 final of 14 January 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic, Hungary and the Slovak Republic to each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Labaš v EUIPO (FRESH)

(Case T-58/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark FRESH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Miroslav Labaš (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Vasiľ, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 November 2021 (Case R 610/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Miroslav Labaš to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/29

Order of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Van Rossum v Council and Commission

(Case T-207/96) (1)

2011/C 204/52

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/16

Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Unindustria and Others v Commission

(Case T-273/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 86/25

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria) (Venice, Italy); Comitato «Venezia vuole vivere» (Venice); Siram SpA (Milan, Italy); Fiorital Srl (Venice); Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas (Venice); Grafiche Veneziane Srl (Venice); Cantiere navale De Poli SpA (Pellestrina, Italy); Aive Srl (Marcon, Italy); Bortoli Ettore Srl (Venice); Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA (Venice); Lorenzo Rubelli SpA (Venice); Tecnomare SpA (Venice); and Arsenale Venezia SpA (Venice) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola and A. Sodano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: U. Leanza initially, then I. Braguglia, then R. Adam and finally I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the order

1. The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.

2. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. The Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivire’, Siram SpA, Fiorital Srl, Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas, Grafiche Veneziane Srl, Cantiere navale De Poli SpA, Aive Srl, Bortoli Ettore Srl, Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA, Lorenzo Rubelli SpA, Tecnomare SpA and Arsenale Venezia SpA, in addition to bearing their own costs, are to pay the costs incurred by the Commission;

4. The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/21

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission

(Case T-264/00) (1)

(Annulment action - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Commission decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2012/C 258/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Compagnia Generale delle Acque SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Biagnini, P. Petinelli and A. Bortoluzzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented initially by U. Leanza, then I. Braguglia, then R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws No 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission relates to the substance of the case.

2. The action is dismissed as being partially manifestly inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

3. Compagnia Generale delle Acque SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/51

Order of the Court of 14 January 2010 — Koninklijke Friesland Campina v Commission

(Case T-348/03 RENV) (1)

2010/C 63/89

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/63

Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 14 January 2008 — Fédération Internationale des Maisons de l'Europe v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-417/03) (1)

(2008/C 64/102)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.