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

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Healy v Commission

(Case T-55/17) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to length of service within the Commission - Non-admission to the assessment tests in a competition))

(2018/C 381/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Morrison Healy (Celbridge, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board for internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the applicant’s candidature.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr John Morrison Healy to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — CLF v Parliament

(Case T-54/17) (1)

((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political party - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 301/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Coalition for Life and Family (CLF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-16 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Coalition for Life and Family (CLF) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM)

(Case T-180/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘EM’ - 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) - Evidence produced for the first time before the General Court))

(2018/C 408/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EM Research Organization, Inc. (Okinawa, Japan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Christoph Fischer GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany), Ole Weinkath (Hünxe-Drevenack, Germany), Multikraft Produktions- und Handels GmbH (Pichl/Wels, Austria), Phytodor AG (Buochs, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger, K. Lochner and M. Peters, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 2442/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Christoph Fischer, Ole Weinkath, Multikraft Produktions- und Handel and Phytodor, on one hand, and, on the other, EM Research Organization.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EM Research Organization, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)

(Case T-266/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark UROAKUT - Earlier national and international figurative marks UroCys - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Power to amend decisions - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 399/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, 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: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1221/2016-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dermapharm and Kwizda Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1221/2016-4);

2. Rejects the opposition brought by Dermapharm GmbH;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by Kwizda Holding GmbH, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders Dermapharm to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case T-186/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark wallapop - Prior national figurative mark wala w - 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) - Similarity of the services)

(2018/C 427/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Unipreus, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: C. Rivadulla Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Bernabeu, D. Gája and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wallpop, SL, (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and J. Sánchez Sánchez-Crespo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 2350/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Unipreus and Wallapop.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017, in so far as it found that the services at issue in Case R 2350/2015-5 were different;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL;

4. Orders Wallapop, SL, to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele'on)

(Case T-472/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Camele’on - Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: in-edit Sàrl (Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 (Case R 570/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilhelm Sihn jr. and in-edit.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Jahlk v Parliament

(Case T-26/17) (1)

((Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Connection with the duties of a Member of the European Parliament - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Procedure for waiving immunity - Rights of defence - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability))

(2018/C 436/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented initially by J.-P. Le Moigne, subsequently by M. Ceccaldi, and finally by F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, and subsequently by S. Alonso de León, N. Görlitz and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision P8_TA(2016)0430 of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 waiving the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jean-François Jalkh to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Szabados v EUIPO — Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (MicroSepar)

(Case T-788/17) (1)

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

(2018/C 436/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Szabados (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Wobst, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2017 (Case R 2420/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between M. Andreas Szabados and Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Andreas Szabados to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

(Case T-44/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CAMOMILLA - Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA - Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Evidence - Counterclaim - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Camomilla Srl (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Mussi and H. Chiappetta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli, A. Stein and G. Rubino, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 2250/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between CMT and Camomilla.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the counterclaim;

3. Orders Camomilla Srl and CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT) each to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Deza v Commission

(Case T-400/17) (1)

((Environment and protection of human health - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances - Regulation (EU) 2017/776 - Classification of anthraquinone - Substance which is a presumed human carcinogen - Manifest error of assessment - Concept of substance - Legal certainty - Right to property))

(2018/C 445/23)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, L. Zettergren and A. Alriksson, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and A. Hautamäki, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/776 of 4 May 2017 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2017 L 116, p. 1), in so far as it classifies anthraquinone as a presumed human carcinogen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

3. Orders the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)

(Case T-372/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))

(2019/C 44/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Bee-Fee Group Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Bee-Fee Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;

3. Orders Bee-Fee Group Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)

(Case T-424/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FRUIT - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Res judicata - Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 35/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 2119/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Takko Holding and Fruit of the Loom.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fruit of the Loom, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-22/17) (1)

((EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Article 31(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Lack of evidence of serious and reasonable doubt - Key controls - Ancillary controls))

(2019/C 72/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the competent paying agency of the Portuguese Republic under the EAFRD in the total amount of EUR 1 990 810,30.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)

(Case T-824/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark H 2 O+ - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 44/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Walicka, then by S. Palmero Cabezas and H.J. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 (Case R 499/2017-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark H 2 O+.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H2O Plus LLC to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)

(Case T-832/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark achtung! - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 93/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: achtung! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Seelig and D. Bischof, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially A. Söder, J. Schäfer and D. Walicka, and subsequently A. Söder, J. Schäfer and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark achtung!.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders achtung! GmbH to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Bischoff v EUIPO — Miroglio Fashion (CARACTÈRE)

(Case T-743/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CARACTÈRE - Absolute grounds for refusal - No descriptive character - 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 82/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bischoff GmbH (Muggensturm, Germany) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miroglio Fashion Srl (Alba, Italy) (represented by: O. Vanner, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2017 (Case R 328/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bischoff and Miroglio Fashion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bischoff GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO)

(Case T-336/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark YATEKOMO - National figurative mark yatecomeré - Admissibility of new information seeking to substantiate the accuracy of a well-known fact - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 103/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The GB Foods, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: C. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

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: Yatecomeré, SL (Ribadumia, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, V. Arnaiz Medina and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 (Case R 1506/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Yatecomeré and The GB Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The GB Foods, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.