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

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)

(Case T-872/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark REPOWER - Absolute ground for invalidity - 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) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Freedom of expression)

(2021/C 242/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón and W. Sakulin, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Alters the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) in such a way as to cancel the contested mark with respect to the following services: — Class 37: ‘Services of heating engineers’; — Class 42: ‘Scientific services and research and development relating thereto; industrial research and analyses.’

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder;

3. Orders repowermap.org to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by EUIPO and Repower AG.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-732/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Spain to certain professional football clubs - Guarantee - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Firm in difficulty - Private investor test - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Amount of the aid - Recipient of the aid - Principle of non-discrimination - Duty to state reasons)

(2020/C 175/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, G. Cabrera López and D. López Rus, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Valencia Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YV and Others v Commission

(Case T-533/16) (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 303/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: YV, YW, YZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke, T. Van Lysebeth and N. Maes, lawyers)

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 or discontinue, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders YV, YW and YZ 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-10/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — CX v Commission

(Case T-743/16 RENV II) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post - OLAF investigation - Unauthorised and clandestine negotiation of a contract - Conflict of interests - Certification of a non-compliant invoice - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Repeated absence of the applicant and his lawyer from the disciplinary hearing - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Reasonable time - Principle ne bis in idem - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 37/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Commission Decision of 16 October 2013 removing the applicant from his post without reduction of his entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CX to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings in Cases F-5/14 R, F-5/14, T-493/15 P, T-743/16 RENV and C-131/19 P.

(1) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-5/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/36

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — SE v Council

(Case T-231/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Concept of ‘child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors’ - Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official))

(2018/C 072/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SE (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 22 June 2016, by which the appointing authority of that institution refused to recognise that the applicant’s granddaughter was a ‘dependent child’ of the applicant within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/29

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY)

(Case T-235/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(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)))

(2018/C 166/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dometic Sweden AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2017 (Case R 1832/2016-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dometic Sweden AB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/49

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG)

(Case T-103/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NORMOSANG - Earlier national word mark NORMON - 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) - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430)))

(2018/C 142/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Recordati Orphan Drugs (Puteaux, France) (represented by: J. Quirin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Normon, SA (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: I. Gonzalez-Mogena Gonzalez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2016 (Case R 831/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Normon and Recordati Orphan Drugs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Recordati Orphan Drugs to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case T-188/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Coil Liner — 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) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner)

(Case T-188/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Coil Liner — 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) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 443/2016 –1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Coil Liner as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 January 2017 (Case R 443/2016–1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case T-297/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark WE KNOW ABRASIVES — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Competence of the Board of Appeal in appeals limited to part of the services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)

(Case T-297/17) ( 1 )

‛(European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark WE KNOW ABRASIVES — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Competence of the Board of Appeal in appeals limited to part of the services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 (Case R 1595/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign WE KNOW ABRASIVES 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 6 March 2017 (Case 1595/2016-4) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign WE KNOW ABRASIVES for services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Advertising; commercial management services; secretariat services; wholesale service in the field of metallic construction products; commercial administration’;

2. Rejects the remainder of the form of order sought of VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG;

3. Orders VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG and EUIPO each to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-369/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Winkler v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Transfer of national pension rights — Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service — Reasonable period — Right to be heard — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Liability — Material damage)

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Winkler v Commission

(Case T-369/17) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Officials — Transfer of national pension rights — Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service — Reasonable period — Right to be heard — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Liability — Material damage)’

Parties

Applicant: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Ireland) (represented by: A. Kässens, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the Commission of 26 September 2016, establishing the number of pensionable years of service to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the EU institutions following the applicant’s request to transfer pension rights acquired before he entered the service of the European Union, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful conduct in processing his transfer request.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case T-68/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark teaespresso — Earlier international figurative mark TPresso and earlier international word mark TPRESSO — 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))

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso)

(Case T-68/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark teaespresso — Earlier international figurative mark TPresso and earlier international word mark TPRESSO — 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))’

Parties

Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, 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 Court: Tpresso SA (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by L. Biglia and R. Spagnolli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 (Case R 1099/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tpresso and Italytrade.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Italytrade Srl to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Case T-88/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2018 — Spain v Commission (EAFRD — Last execution year of 2007-2013 programming period — Clearance of accounts of Member States’ paying agencies — Decision declaring a certain amount non-reusable in the Rural development programme of the Autonomous Community of Estremadura — Calculation method — Article 69(6b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Legitimate expectations)

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2018 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-88/17) ( 1 )

‛(EAFRD — Last execution year of 2007-2013 programming period — Clearance of accounts of Member States’ paying agencies — Decision declaring a certain amount non-reusable in the Rural development programme of the Autonomous Community of Estremadura — Calculation method — Article 69(6b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Legitimate expectations)’

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull and M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and M. Morales Puerta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2113 of 30 November 2016 on the clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period (16 October 2014-31 December 2015) (OJ 2016 L 327, p. 79), by which the Commission classified the sum of EUR 5364682,52 as a ‘non-reusable amount’ in the clearance of the accounts of the Estremadura paying agency.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case T-691/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2018 — hoechstmass Balzer v EUIPO (Shape of a tape measure case) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a tape measure case — 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))

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2018 — hoechstmass Balzer v EUIPO (Shape of a tape measure case)

(Case T-691/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a tape measure case — 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))’

Parties

Applicant: hoechstmass Balzer GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany) (represented by: K. Zapfe, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 (Case R 2331/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a tape measure case as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders hoechstmass Balzer GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament

(Case T-61/17) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand - Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Right to good administration - Right of access to the file - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Misuse of power - Non-contractual liability))

(2018/C 392/27)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Jasenko Selimovic (Hägersten, Sweden) (represented initially by: B. Leidhammar and subsequently by: S. Scheiman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, L. Tapper Brandberg and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the President of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 12 December 2016 imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the request for an expedited procedure as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Mr Jasenko Selimovic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.