ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/32

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO (Representation of a grey curve and representation of a green curve)

(Joined Cases T-678/15 and T-679/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Applications for EU figurative trade marks representing a grey curve and representing a green curve - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Simplicity of the sign - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 038/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Zintler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz and S. Hanne, Agents)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2015 (Cases R 78/2015-5 and R 89/2015-5), concerning applications for registration of two figurative signs, representing a grey curve and representing a green curve, as EU trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 September 2015 (Cases R 78/2015-5 and R 89/2015-5);

2. Allows the appeals brought by Novartis AG before that Board of Appeal;

3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/44

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — PAL-Bullermann v EUIPO — Symaga (PAL)

(Case T-397/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark PAL - Partial revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing from the registered mark - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 030/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAL-Bullermann GmbH (Friesoythe-Markhausen, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Symaga, SA (Villarta de San Juan, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 May 2015 (Case R 1626/2014-1) relating to revocation proceedings between PAL-Bullermann and Symaga.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PAL-Bullermann GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/27

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-687/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl - Earlier EU figurative mark café crem - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 078/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Majer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 2757/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marcas Costa Brava and Excellent Brands JMI.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/17

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love)

(Case T-325/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 070/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Moisescu and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Budapest)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 1369/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató and Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/26

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — EEAS v Gross

(Case T-472/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2013 promotion exercise - Non-inclusion on the list of promoted officials - No error of law))

(2017/C 121/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: initially, S. Marquardt and M. Silva, and subsequently S. Marquardt, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, S. Moya Izquierdo and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Philipp Oliver Gross (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2015, Gross v EEAS (F-78/14, EU:F:2015:52), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Philipp Oliver Gross in the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/46

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)

(Case T-516/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Types - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Types 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 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1);

2. Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/31

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY)

(Case T-389/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark J&JOY - Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Assessment criteria - Composite mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 151/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua, C. Pirenne and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 1355/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Joy-Sportswear and J & Joy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders J & Joy SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/36

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Cryo-Save v EUIPO — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save)

(Case T-239/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cryo-Save - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the mark - Burden of proof - Declaration of revocation))

(2017/C 144/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and W. Schramek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 2567/2013-4), concerning revocation proceedings between MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack and Cryo-Save.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cryo-Save AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/26

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg v ECB

(Case T-122/15) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Single supervisory mechanism - Competences of the ECB - Decentralised exercise by the national authorities - Assessment of the size of a credit institution - Need for direct supervision by the ECB))

(2017/C 213/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: initially by A. Glos, K. Lackhoff and M. Benzing, and subsequently by A. Glos and M. Benzing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and A. Riso, and subsequently by E. Koupepidou and R. Bax, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/15/1 of the ECB of 5 January 2015, taken pursuant to Article 6(4) and Article 24(7) 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), by which the ECB refused to recognise the applicant as a less significant entity within the meaning of Article 6(4) of that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank.

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

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/21

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Environmental Manufacturing v EUIPO — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)

(Case T-681/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier international figurative mark Outils WOLF - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 195/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

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: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 1252/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Environmental Manufacturing LLP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/34

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Sistema Teknolotzis v Commission

(Case T-234/15) (1)

((Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreements for the PlayMancer, Mobiserv and PowerUp projects - Article 299 TFEU - Enforceable decision - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Proportionality - Duty of diligence - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 277/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sistema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Georgilas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Politis, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 1677 final of 10 March 2015 constituting writ of execution for the enforced recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 716 334,05 together with interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sistema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/23

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Ball Beverage Packaging Europe v EUIPO — Crown Hellas Can (Cans)

(Case T-9/15) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing three cans - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Group of articles constituting a single unit - Scope of the description of the registered Community design - Obligation to state reasons - Replacement of a party to the proceedings))

(2017/C 249/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom), authorised to replace Ball Europe GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Crown Hellas Can SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Coulson and J. Koepp, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2014 (Case R 1408/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Crown Hellas Can and Ball Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Grants Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd leave to substitute itself for Ball Europe GmbH as applicant.

2. Dismisses the action.

3. Orders Ball Beverage Packaging Europe to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Crown Hellas Can SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/10

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — RP Technik v EUIPO — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)

(Case T-768/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark RP ROYAL PALLADIUM - Earlier EU word mark RP - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 369/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: P.-J. Henrichs, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Tecnomarmi Snc Di Gatto Omar & C. (Treviso, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2015 (Case R 2061/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between RP Technik and Tecnomarmi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/36

Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — EDF Toruń v ECHA

(Case T-758/15) (1)

((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Calculation criteria of the amount of the administrative charge))

(2017/C 283/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: EDF Toruń SA (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: K. Sienkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: J.-P. Trnka, C. Schultheiss and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, seeking first, the annulment of Decision SME(2015) 4950 of the ECHA of 3 November 2015 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it and, second, the annulment of invoice No 10054011 issued by the ECHA following the adoption of Decision SME(2015) 4950.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EDF Toruń S.A. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Case T-736/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLITe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark skylite — Earlier EU word mark SKY — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Regulation No 207/2009)

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLITe)

(Case T-736/15) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark skylite — Earlier EU word mark SKY — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Regulation No 207/2009)’

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2015 (Case R 2771/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Aldi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/27

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara)

(Case T-238/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zimara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal - First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards ‘veterinary preparations’;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/13

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-692/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Duty to provide reasons - Contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2018/C 042/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and M. Bever, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and R. Tricot, and subsequently by R. Tricot and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the losses which the applicant allegedly suffered following the listing of its name, first, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25) in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1) and, secondly, by Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.