ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-426/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2018 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2018 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)

(Case T-426/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Item Industrietechnik GmbH (Solingen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and M. Vitt, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 (Case R 1881/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EFUSE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Item Industrietechnik GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Case T-657/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 – Anabi Blanga v EUIPO — Polo/Lauren (HPC POLO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark HPC POLO — Earlier EU word mark POLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 – Anabi Blanga v EUIPO — Polo/Lauren (HPC POLO)

(Case T-657/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark HPC POLO — Earlier EU word mark POLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Gidon Anabi Blanga (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: R. Black, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2368/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company and Mr Anabi Blanga.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Gidon Anabi Blanga to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Case T-165/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2018 — Emcur v EUIPO — Emcure Pharmaceuticals (EMCURE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EMCURE — Earlier EU and national word marks EMCUR — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods and services — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2018 — Emcur v EUIPO — Emcure Pharmaceuticals (EMCURE)

(Case T-165/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EMCURE — Earlier EU and national word marks EMCUR — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods and services — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH (Bad Ems, Germany) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Bhosari, India)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2016 (Case R 790/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems and Emcure Pharmaceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 13 December 2016 (Case R 790/2016-2) in so far as it concerns the services in Classes 42 and 44 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 EUIPO and Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH to bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Schoonjans v Commission

(Case T-79/17) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to the function group to which the candidate belongs on the date of expiry of the deadline for submitting applications - Non-admission to the tests in a competition))

(2018/C 392/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alain Schoonjans (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of the applicant and, second, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of Mr Alain Schoonjans;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — APF v Parliament

(Case T-16/17) (1)

((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political party - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Abuse of power))

(2018/C 301/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-15 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Mondi v ACER

(Case T-146/17) (1)

((Energy - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER - Rejection of the application to intervene - Direct and existing interest at the end of the procedure - Right to be heard))

(2018/C 408/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mondi AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: B. Rajal, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 17 February 2017 rejecting the applicant’s application to intervene in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mondi AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER);

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

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission

(Case T-39/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to preliminary investigations concerning schemes for State aid in the ports sector of all the Member States - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Concept of privacy - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Application of a general presumption - Overriding public interest))

(2018/C 399/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, B. Stromsky and C. Georgieva- Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 7755 final of 23 November 2016 refusing to grant the applicant, first, full access to the questionnaire sent to all the Member States, secondly, access to the Member States’ replies to that questionnaire, referred to in a letter sent on 8 July 2016 to the French Republic in the context of State aid procedure SA.38398 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) –Tax treatment of ports in France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2018 — M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v EUIPO (fluo.)

(Case T-120/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark fluo. - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Spyridonos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M.d.M. Baldares and J. Ivanauskas, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign fluo. as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Wajos v EUIPO (Form of a container)

(Case T-313/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Form of a container - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, R. Krillke and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Graul and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the form of a container as an EU trade mark.

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 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)

(Case T-444/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark life coins - Earlier EU word mark LIFE - 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 436/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Medion AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hagemeier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1569/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Medion and CompuGroup Medical.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CompuGroup Medical AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Medion AG.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Mamas and Papas v EUIPO — Wall-Budden (Cot bumpers)

(Case T-672/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cot bumper - Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure - Principle of functional continuity - Insufficient evidence to establish disclosure))

(2018/C 436/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mamas and Papas Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Reid, Barrister, and by B. Whitehead, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Jane Wall-Budden (Byfleet, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2017 (Case R 208/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mamas and Papas and Jane Wall-Budden.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mamas and Papas Ltd to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Sperlari (DIETOX)

(Case T-486/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark DIETOX - Earlier EU figurative mark Dietor - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foodterapia, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and H. Tellez Robledo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sperlari Srl, formerly Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 (Case R 1611/2016-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Cloetta Italia and Foodterapia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Foodterapia, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Sperlari Srl, including the costs necessarily incurred by the latter’s legal predecessor before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)

(Case T-758/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No 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))

(2019/C 4/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J.L. Gracia Albero and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2017 (Case R 2439/2016-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign PERFECT BAR 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 5 September 2017 (Case R 2439/2016-4) in respect of ‘Protein supplements’ and ‘Dietary and nutritional supplements’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS

(Case T-315/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - EEAS - Posting - Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia - Decision refusing to extend the posting - Interest of the service - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment))

(2019/C 44/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Fourmies, France) (represented by B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS communicated to the applicant on 3 February 2017 rejecting her complaint against the decision of the EEAS not to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia and, second, compensation for non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 30 June 2016 refusing the request of Ms Chantal Hebberecht to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia by one year.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — PepsiCo v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Exxtra Deep)

(Case T-82/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Exxtra Deep - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 35/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Lampel and M. Pfaff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 (Case R 482/2016-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between PepsiCo and Intersnack Group.

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 24 November 2016 (Case R 482/2016-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by PepsiCo, Inc.;

3. Orders Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2018 — GE.CO.P. v Commission

(Case T-280/17) (1)

((Public procurement - Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of two years - Article 108 of the Financial Regulation - Rights of the defence - Proof of receipt of a notification))

(2019/C 72/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: GE.CO.P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Naticchioni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the Commission Decision of 7 March 2017 excluding the applicant from participation in procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union and participation in award procedures within the framework of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the eleventh European Development Fund (OJ 2015 L 58, p. 17) and ordering the publication of that exclusion on the Commission’s website and, secondly, of all relevant acts precedent or subsequent to that decision, including any of which the applicant is unaware.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission Decision of 7 March 2017 excluding GE.CO. P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA from participation in procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union and participation in award procedures within the framework of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the eleventh European Development Fund and ordering the publication of that exclusion on the Commission’s website;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.