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

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-791/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to a professional football club - Settlement aimed atcompensating for a failure to carry out a land transfer initially agreed between a city council and a football club - Football club overcompensated - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Advantage)

(2019/C 230/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster and F. Löwhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2393 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for Real Madrid CF (OJ 2016 L 358, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2393 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for Real Madrid CF;

2. Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Real Madrid Club de Fútbol.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Dudingen Develops (MI)

(Case T-799/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MI - Earlier EU figurative mark MI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 148/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xiaomi Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

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: Dudingen Develops, SL (Leganés, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 (Case R 337/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Xiaomi and Dudingen Develops.

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 2016 (Case R 337/2016-4) in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the opposition to registration of the figurative sign MI as a European Union trade mark for ‘electricity mains (materials for -) [cables]’, ‘electric cables’, ‘insulated electrical cables’, ‘connection cables’, ‘cable connectors’, ‘plug adaptors’, ‘electrical power adaptors’, ‘travel adaptors for electric plugs’, ‘adapters for connecting telephones to hearing aids’ and ‘electrical power extension cords’, in Class 9, and ‘rucksacks’, ‘small rucksacks’ and ‘bags for climbers’, in Class 18;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Xiaomi Inc. to bear two thirds of its costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

4. Orders EUIPO to bear one third of its costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Xiaomi.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)

(Case T-796/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU three-dimensional mark - Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle - Earlier three-dimensional national mark - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Nature of use - Alteration of distinctive character - Use in conjunction with other marks - Scope of the protection - Requirement for clarity and precision - Requirement for the description and the representation to align with one another - Decision taken following annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Reference to the grounds of an earlier annulled decision - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 390/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 (Case R 1248/2015 4) relating to opposition proceedings between CEDC International and Underberg.

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 29 August 2016 (Case R 1248/2015 4) in respect of the grounds of opposition set out in Article 8(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders CEDC International sp. z o.o., EUIPO and Underberg AG to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Joined Cases T-377/16, T-645/16 and T-809/16) (1)

(Economic and Monetary Union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the 2016 ex-ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Procedure for the adoption of the decision - Obligation to state reasons - Limitation in time of the effects of the judgment)

(2020/C 36/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG, formerly Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger and A. Brenneis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. in Cases T-645/16 and T-809/16, dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

2. in Case T-377/16, annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG;

3. orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hypo Vorarlberg Bank in Case T-377/16;

4. orders Hypo Vorarlberg Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the SRB in Cases T-645/16 and T-809/16, and in Case T-645/16 R;

5. orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission

(Case T-531/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses - Place of origin located in a third country - Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)

(2022/C 303/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Vasile Dumitrescu (Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, Belgium), Guido Schwarz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Applications under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions to reduce, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin and for an order requiring the Commission to make a reimbursement of annual travel expenses to the applicants’ place of origin that covers their actual expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vasile Dumitrescu and Guido Schwarz to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-7/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Severstal v Commission

(Case T-753/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Use of facts available - Article 2(3), (4), (9), (10) and (12) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(3), (4), (9), (10) and (12) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Calculation of the normal value, the export price and the dumping margin - Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Determination of the existence of injury - Article 3(7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(7) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Causal link - Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Injury elimination - Rights of the defence - Principle of good administration - Proportionality - Manifest errors of assessment)

(2021/C 462/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Severstal (Cherepovets, Russia) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, N. Tuominen and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, K. Blanck and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL, (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and S. Seeuws, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 of 29 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (OJ 2016 L 210, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PAO Severstal to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL, to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/40

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)

(Case T-50/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark TO CREATE REALITY - Trade mark consisting in an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001]))

(2018/C 022/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mackevision Medien Design GmbH Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: E. Stolz, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2016 (Case R 995/2016-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TO CREATE REALITY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mackevision Medien Design GmbH Stuttgart to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/34

Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2018 — Hotelbeds Spain v EUIPO — Guidigo Europe (Guidego what to do next)

(Case T-346/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Guidego what to do next - Earlier EU word mark GUIDIGO - 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 152/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hotelbeds Spain, SL (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, 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 General Court: Guidigo Europe (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Lipovetsky, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 (Case R 449/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Guidigo Europe and Hotelbeds Spain.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hotelbeds Spain, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/19

Judgment of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)

(Case T-210/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE TURBO - Earlier EU figurative mark TURBO - 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)))

(2018/C 123/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 (Case R 119/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Zitro IP and International Gaming Projects.

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 8 February 2017 (Case R 119/2016-4);

2) Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by International Gaming Projects Ltd;

3) Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Joined Cases T-193/17, T-194/17 and T-195/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip and others) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip — Figurative EU trade mark representing a part of a prosthetic hip — EU trade mark consisting in a shade of pink — Withdrawal of applications for declarations of invalidity and closure of the invalidity proceedings — Action of the proprietor of the mark seeking the annulment of decisions closing proceedings — Inadmissibility of action before the Board of Appeal — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip and others)

(Joined Cases T-193/17, T-194/17 and T-195/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip — Figurative EU trade mark representing a part of a prosthetic hip — EU trade mark consisting in a shade of pink — Withdrawal of applications for declarations of invalidity and closure of the invalidity proceedings — Action of the proprietor of the mark seeking the annulment of decisions closing proceedings — Inadmissibility of action before the Board of Appeal — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: CeramTec GmbH (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: initially A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, and subsequently A. Renck, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States) (represented by: S. Naumann, lawyer)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 (Cases R 929/2016-4, R 928/2016-4 and R 930/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between C5 Medical Werks and CeramTec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders CeramTec GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and C5 Medical Werks.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case T-354/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE — 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) — Equal treatment)

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)

(Case T-354/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE — 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) — Equal treatment)’

Parties

Applicant: Genomic Health, Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States of America) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 (Case R 1682/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Genomic Health, Inc., to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case T-303/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 4000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)

(Case T-303/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 4000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 654/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools and Sata.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-299/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 1000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000)

(Case T-299/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 1000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 (Case R 650/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools and Sata.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.