ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/18

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T-23/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Formata - Absolute ground for invalidity - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 129/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Biernacka-Hoba and Formata Bogusław Hoba.

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 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity based on a relative ground for invalidity;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba;

4. Orders Ms Biernacka-Hoba to bear half of her own costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/30

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2017 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of two red oblique curves)

(Case T-130/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing two red oblique curves - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to assess the distinctiveness of a mark by reference to the perception which the relevant public has of it))

(2017/C 078/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, Agent)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 (Case R 1933/2015-2) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two red oblique curves.

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 26 January 2016 (Case R 1933/2015-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/28

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — HN v Commission

(Case T-588/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Reform of the Staff Regulations - New career rules and rules for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 - Officials of grade AD 12 - Exercise of particular responsibilities - Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Promotion year 2014 - Request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ - Lack of response from the Appointing Authority - Promotion year 2015 - Fresh request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ or ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ - Rejected by the Appointing Authority - Confirmatory nature of the refusal of categorisation in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ - Requirements related to the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 195/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HN (represented by: F. Sciaudone and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Ehrbar and A-C. Simon, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking in particular the annulment of ‘the decision rejecting the [applicant’s] request to be regarded as exercising particular responsibilities giving rise to his categorisation in the type of post [of] “Adviser or equivalent” under Article 30(3) of Annex XIII of the [new] Staff Regulations’ and Decision SEC(2013) 691 of 18 December 2013, entitled “Communication to the Commission amending the Rules governing the composition of the Members” Cabinets and the Spokespersons’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr HN to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-18/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016)..
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/34

Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-28/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development - Land consolidation and village renewal - Criteria used for selection of operations - Principle of sincere cooperation - Subsidiarity - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 151/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, and subsequently by T. Henze and D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 1 and the Annex of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098, of 13 November 2015, 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 2015 L 303, p. 35), in so far as the payments made by the agency responsible for payment in the Federal Republic of Germany under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in the total amount of EUR 7 719 920,30, are excluded from EU financing.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/24

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro)

(Case T-472/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark LegalPro - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 221/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, 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 17 June 2016 (Case R 146/2016-4) concerning the application for registration of the word sign ‘LegalPro’ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marsh GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/17

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)

(Case T-262/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GLOBO MEDIA - Earlier national figurative mark TV GLOBO PORTUGAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 202/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Globo Media, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 (Case R 0561/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Globo Comunicação e Participações and Globo Media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Globo Media, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/22

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Clarke and Others v EUIPO

(Case T-89/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition - Implementation of the termination clause - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Duty of care - Legitimate expectation))

(2017/C 256/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Nicole Clarke (Alicante, Spain), Sigrid Dickmanns, (Gran Alacant, Spain) and Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015, Clarke and Others v OHIM (F-101/14 to F-103/14, EU:F:2015:151) and asking that that judgment be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/25

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Commission v IEM

(Case T-141/16) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Contract FAIR-CT98-9544 concluded under the Fourth Framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998) - Termination of the contract - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Default interest - Default procedure))

(2017/C 249/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents, and O. Lytra, lawyer)

Defendant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE reimburse the advances paid by the European Commission in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544, together with default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE to pay the sum of EUR 75 728,33 to the European Commission, together with default interest at the rate of 3 % to run from 4 September 2010 until payment in full;

2. Orders IEM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/46

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD)

(Case T-650/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark QD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 (Case R 2046/2015-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign QD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/39

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband)

(Case T-90/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband - Prior Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002))

(2017/C 277/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, and M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

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: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 736/2014–3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Murphy and Nike Innovate.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Thomas Murphy to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/11

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2017 — Codorniú SA v EUIPO

(Case T-86/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ANA DE ALTUN - Earlier national figurative mark ANNA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 369/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Codorniú SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bodegas Altun, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain) (represented by: M. Escribano Uzcudun, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 (Case R 199/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Codorníu and Bodegas Altun.

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 9 December 2015 (Case R 199/2015-2);

2. Orders EUIPO and Bodegas Altun, SL to bear their own costs and each to pay half of those incurred by Codorníu SA.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/37

Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Chanel v EUIPO — Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Ornamentation)

(Case T-57/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing ornamentation - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Product at issue - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 283/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Chanel and, on the other hand, Mr Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/31

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission

(Case T-87/16) (1)

((Financial assistance - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - ASSET Convention - Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit - Action for annulment - Legitimate expectations - Arbitration clause - Deadline for providing the audit report - Adversarial principle - Eligibility of costs - Contractual liability))

(2017/C 374/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, Agents)

Re:

On the one hand, application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision of 17 December 2015 to proceed to recovery by offsetting, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit, certain sums advanced to the applicant under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project, concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, and, on the other hand, application based on Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that that debt does not exist, that the expenditure incurred under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project is eligible and to order the Commission to confirm that the funding granted is lawful, to order the Commission to pay a sum under Grant Agreement No 607049 in respect of the Eksistenz project and to pay contractual compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eurofast SARL to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 78 380,28, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contribution from which it benefitted under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the project ‘Aeronautic Study on Seamless Transport’, plus late-payment interest at a rate of 3,55 % from 13 January 2015, after deduction of the offset amount, namely EUR 69 923,68 as at 17 December 2015.

3. Orders Eurofast to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those related to the interlocutory procedure.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/15

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Opa)

(Case T-449/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Bester Opa - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 369/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, 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 26 May 2016 (Case R 92/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Bester Opa as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/28

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Asna v EUIPO — Wings Software (ASNA WINGS)

(Case T-382/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ASNA WINGS - Earlier Benelux word mark WINGS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court))

(2017/C 402/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asna, Inc. (San Antonio, Texas, United States) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wings Software BVBA (Heist-Op-den-Berg, Belgium) (represented by: C. Dekoninck and J. Bussé, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2016 (Case R 436/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Wings Software and Asna.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Asna, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/21

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — SDSR v EUIPO — Berghaus (BERG OUTDOOR)

(Case T-139/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BERG OUTDOOR - Earlier EU word marks BERGHAUS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2017/C 392/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sports Division SR, SA (SDSR) (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Berghaus Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Ashby, A. Carboni and J. Colbourn, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 (Case R 153/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Berghaus and SDSR.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sports Division SR, SA (SDSR) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO and the intervener.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/30

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2017 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-26/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Debt reporting irregularities - Delays in the recovery procedure - Failure to offset funds - Determination of the amount of interest - Proportionality - Flat-rate financial correction - Articles 31 to 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Individual situations))

(2017/C 424/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 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 2015 L 303, p. 35) to the extent that it concerns the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.