ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-427/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2018 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word 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-427/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word 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 1882/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word 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-71/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — France.com v EUIPO — France (FRANCE.com) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark FRANCE.com — Earlier international figurative mark France — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 26 June 2018 — France.com v EUIPO — France (FRANCE.com)

(Case T-71/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark FRANCE.com — Earlier international figurative mark France — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: France.com (Coral Gables, Florida, United States) (represented by: A. Bertrand, 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: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2016 (Case R 2452/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the French Republic and France.com.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders France.com, Inc., to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Case T-86/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Rights of the defence — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Misuse of powers — Independence of the Members — Error of fact — Proportionality)

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-86/17) ( 1 )

‛(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Rights of the defence — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Misuse of powers — Independence of the Members — Error of fact — Proportionality)’

Parties

Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: initially, M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, subsequently, M. Ceccaldi and, finally, R. Bosselut, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 5 December 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 298497,87 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and of the debit note of 6 December 2016 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marion Le Pen to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Duferco Long Products v Commission

(Case T-93/17) (1)

((State aid - Steel sector - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the steel sector - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Duty to state reasons - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))

(2018/C 392/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Duferco Long Products SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and M. Favart, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco (OJ 2016, L 314, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Duferco Long Products SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RI v Council

(Case T-9/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the invalidity as arising from an occupational disease - Incorrect view of the concept of occupational disease - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RI (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Forgeois, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise RI’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)

(Case T-668/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Eico - Earlier EU word mark MAICO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 408/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maico Holding GmbH (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger and D. Deckers, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eico A/S (Brønderslev, Denmark) (represented by: A. Skov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017 (Case R 2089/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Maico Holding and Eico.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maico Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-233/17) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Direct payments - POSEI programme - Exceeding of ceilings - Payment delays - First subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006 - Double financial correction - Rights of the defence - Proportionality))

(2018/C 408/65)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, D. Bianchi and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 766 final of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic under the ‘POSEI — specific supply arrangements’ programme and ‘direct payments pertaining to the 2010 marketing year’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

(Case T-150/17) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark FLÜGEL - Earlier national word marks …VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL - Relative grounds for refusal - Extinction of rights due to acquiescence - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absence of likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity between the goods - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors and N. Dorenbosch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 (Case R 282/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Red Bull and Asolo.

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 17 November 2016 (Case R 282/2015-5), in so far as it dismisses the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the EU trade mark FLÜGEL invalid for the goods ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ and ‘alcoholic essences; alcoholic extracts; fruits extracts (alcoholic)’ in Class 33 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 Red Bull GmbH to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Asolo Ltd.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)

(Case T-24/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark D-TACK - Earlier national word mark TACK - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Use under a different form - Opposition dismissed - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2018/C 427/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LA Superquimica, SA (Barcelona (Spain)) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: D-Tack GmbH (Hüttlingen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 (Case R 1983/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between LA Superquimica and D-Tack.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LA Superquimica, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)

(Case T-533/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark - Earlier EU word marks NANU and NANU-NANA - Relative ground for refusal - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] - Complementarity of the goods - Principles of autonomy and independence of the EU trade mark - Principles of compliance with the law and sound administration - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 436/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Next design+produktion GmbH (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 (Case R 1448/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Next design+produktion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Next design+produktion GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)

(Case T-171/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KIMIKA - Earlier EU word mark KAMIK - Relative grounds 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) - Genuine use - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 436/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M & K Srl (Prato, Italy) (represented by: initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Genfoot, Inc. (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2017 (Case R 1206/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Genfoot and M & K.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders M & K Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 –Szentes v Commission

(Case T-830/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice - Open competition - Admission conditions - Professional experience - Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition - Request for review - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of information in the application form - Manifest error of assessment - Breach of the notice of competition))

(2019/C 16/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gyula Szentes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the chair of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AD/330/16 — Nuclear safeguards inspectors (AD 7) of 24 February 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition and, second, as far as necessary, of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 29 September 2017 rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Gyula Szentes to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case T-759/17) (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 4/40)

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 2440/2016-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative 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 2440/2016-4) 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.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Shindler and Others v Council

(Case T-458/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Institutional law - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU - Agreement setting out the arrangements for withdrawal - Article 50 TEU - Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom with a view to conclusion of that agreement - UK citizens residing in another EU Member State - Preparatory act - Act not open to challenge - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d’Ascoli, Italy) and 12 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

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

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) of 22 May 2017 authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an agreement setting out the arrangements for that Member State’s withdrawal from the European Union (document XT 21016/17), including the annex to that decision establishing directives for the negotiation of that agreement (document XT 21016/17 ADD 1 REV 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as being inadmissible.

2. Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

3. Orders Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Buck-Chemie v EUIPO — Henkel (Cleansing block for toilets)

(Case T-296/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cleansing block for toilets - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2019/C 35/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Buck-Chemie GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schultze, J. Ossing, R.-D. Härer, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Brockmann and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

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: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 2113/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Buck-Chemie and Henkel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Buck-Chemie GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, including the costs necessarily incurred before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2018 — La Zaragozana v EUIPO — Heineken Italia (CERVISIA)

(Case T-378/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CERVISIA - Earlier national word mark CERVISIA AMBAR - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 72/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Saragossa, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García and A.M. Santos Pribañez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Heineken Italia SpA (Pollein, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 (Case R 1241/2016-5) concerning opposition proceedings between La Zaragozana and Heineken Italia.

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 13 March 2017 (Case R 1241/2016-5);

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.