ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Welmax +. v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

(Case T-305/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark welmax - Earlier EU word mark valmex - Time limits for an appeal before the Board of Appeal - Delay - Point from which time starts to run - Notification - Proof of dispatch by registered post - Communication by email - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the time limit - Appeal deemed not to have been filed - Scope of the requests for regularisation - Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Articles 23 and 56 to 58 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2020/C 339/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Welmax + sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: M. Machyński, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Valmex Medical Imaging GmbH (Augsbourg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2019 (Case R 2245/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Valmex Medical Imaging and Welmax +.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Welmax + sp. z o.o. sp.k. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-295/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources applies - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State has been taken in compliance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 271/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Vitro and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019, L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352, of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies with regard to the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — UE v Commission

(Case T-338/19) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary members of staff - Health problems alleged to have been caused by working conditions - Request for recognition of an occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Right to be heard - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Obligation for the person concerned to be heard before the original decision)

(2020/C 390/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the Commission, of 1 August 2018, by which the applicant’s request for recognition of an occupational disease, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, was dismissed as inadmissible.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of the European Commission, of 1 August 2018, by which the request by UE for recognition of an occupational disease, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, was dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS)

(Case T-669/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark PRIMUS - Earlier EU word mark PRIMUS - Earlier Benelux word mark PRIMUS - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brouwerij Haacht NV (Boortmeerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: G. Glas and E. Taelman, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2019 (Case R 2528/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Brouwerij Haacht and Novomatic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Brown v Commission

(Case T-18/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Official with United Kingdom nationality at the date of entering the service - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Acquisition of the nationality of the country of employment during the course of a career - Loss of the expatriation allowance - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

(2020/C 414/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Van Damme, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 19 March 2018 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) withdrawing the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance and to the payment of travel expenses and, secondly, re-establishment of those benefits with effect from 1 December 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Colin Brown and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — BASF v Commission

(Case T-472/19) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing omega-3 acid ethyl esters - Variation of the terms of the authorisation - First paragraph of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2020/C 390/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Wright, Barrister, and H. Boland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 4336 final of 6 June 2019 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing ‘Omega-3 acid ethyl esters’ for oral use in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BASF AS to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM ULTRA)

(Case T-643/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Use with the proprietor’s consent - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 9/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, V.J. Ruzek, and K. Zajfert, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Co. and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dermavita Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Allergan Holdings France to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Dvectis CZ v EUIPO — Yado (Support pillow)

(Case T-818/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a support pillow - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 433/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dvectis CZ s. r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Svojanovská, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Yado s. r. o. (Handlová, Slovakia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 (Case R 513/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yado and Dvectis CZ.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dvectis CZ s. r. o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — ACRE v Parliament

(Case T-107/19) (1)

(Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision declaring certain expenses of a political party ineligible for a grant for the year 2017 - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Prohibition of the funding of a national political party - Contribution or donation by a national political party - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Decision granting a contribution to a political party for 2019 and making pre-funding of 100 % of the maximum amount of the contribution subject to certain prior repayments - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 - Rights of defence)

(2021/C 28/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Plasschaert and É. Montens, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (represented by: M. Adam and A. Cilea, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, partial annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 10 December 2018 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2017 and ordering repayment of a donation and, secondly, of Parliament Decision FINS-2019-5, notified to the applicant on 14 January 2019, concerning the award of a contribution to the applicant for 2019, in so far as that decision makes pre-funding equivalent to 100 % of the maximum amount of the contribution subject to certain prior repayments.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 10 December 2018 declaring certain expenses ineligible for a grant for the year 2017 and ordering the return of a donation in so far as it reclassifies the expenses relating to the conference held in Kampala (Uganda) from 13 to 15 July 2017, namely, EUR 91 546,58, as ineligible for funding;

2. Annuls Decision FINS-2019-5 of the Parliament of 14 January 2019 on the granting of a contribution to the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) for the year 2019 in so far as Article I.5.1 thereof makes the payment of pre-funding equivalent to 100 % of the maximum amount of the contribution subject to certain prior reimbursements;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the European Parliament, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay one third of those incurred by ACRE. ACRE is to bear two thirds of its own costs;

5. Orders the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — BMC v Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

(Case T-71/19) (1)

(Research and technological development and space - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ (2014-2020) - Procedure for call for proposals H2020-CS 2 -CFP08-FRC-2018-01 - Rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant - Assignment of non-integer scores - Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Failure to sufficiently examine the proposal - Distortion of the facts)

(2021/C 28/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: BMC Srl (Medicina, Italy) (represented by: S. Dindo and L. Picotti, lawyers)

Defendant: the joint undertaking Clean Sky 2 (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the joint undertaking Clean Sky 2 of 10 October 2018 rejecting proposal No 831874 ‘smart De-icing bARrier Filter (DwARF)’ submitted by the applicant in call for proposals H2020-CS 2-CFP08-FRC-2018-01 and of its decision of 6 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for a review of the assessment of that proposal and confirming the decision 10 October 2018 by which it rejected that proposal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BMC Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haikal v Council

(Case T-189/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Right to carry on an economic activity - Right to respect for private and family life)

(2021/C 62/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Maen Haikal (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Cholakova and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Maen Haikal to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Alkemie Group v EUIPO — Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)

(Case T-859/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALKEMIE - Earlier EU word mark Alkmene - 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))

(2021/C 53/49)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mann & Schröder GmbH (Siegelsbach, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2230/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Mann & Schröder and Alkemie Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2230/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed Alkemie Group sp. z o.o’s action in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-123/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 98/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile, S. Van Overmeire and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 134, p. 47) and, second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 314, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Célestin Kanyama to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — OmniVision (Hydrovision)

(Case T-817/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Hydrovision - Earlier EU word mark Hylo-Vision - 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))

(2021/C 88/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: OmniVision GmbH (Puchheim, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, D. Wiedemann and M. Ringer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 (Case R 2371/2018 2), relating to opposition proceedings between OmniVision and Olimp Laboratories.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Olimp Laboratories sp z o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars)

(Case T-588/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Power Stars - Partial revocation declaration - Partial lack of genuine use - Proof of genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 217/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: M. Ringer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 2038/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Novomatic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.