ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2021 — Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA

(Case T-611/18) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation for a generic version of the medicinal product Tecfidera - Decision of the EMA not to validate the application for marketing authorisation - Previous decision of the Commission taking the view that Tecfidera - Dimethyl fumarate was not covered by the same global marketing authorisation as Fumaderm - Plea of illegality - Admissibility - Previously authorised combination medicinal product - Subsequent marketing authorisation for a component of the combination medicinal product - Assessment of the existence of two different global marketing authorisations - Manifest error of assessment)

(2021/C 242/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A. (Starogard Gdański, Poland) (represented by: M. Martens and N. Carbonnelle, lawyers, and by S. Faircliffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Drosos and R. Pita, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents), Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Re:

Application, first, for a declaration that the plea of illegality raised in respect of Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 601 final of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation for Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate, a medicinal product for human use, is admissible and well founded in so far as, in that implementing decision, the Commission considers that Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate is not covered by the same global marketing authorisation as Fumaderm, and, second, based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EMA of 30 July 2018 not to validate the application submitted by the applicant with a view to obtaining a marketing authorisation for a generic version of the medicinal product Tecfidera.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 30 July 2018 not to validate the application submitted by Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A. with a view to obtaining a marketing authorisation for a generic version of the medicinal product Tecfidera;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the EMA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma;

4. Orders Biogen Netherlands BV and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-691/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 88/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Liberty Global Europe Holding BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: W. Knibbeler, E. Raedts, A. Pliego Selie and I. Lulof, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 3569 final of 30 May 2018 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KPN BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Naturgy Energy Group v Commission

(Case T-328/18) (1)

(State aid - Environmental incentive adopted by Spain in favour of coal-fired power plants - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Selective nature)

(2021/C 422/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naturgy Energy Group, SA, formerly Gas Natural SDG, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: EDP España, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers), Viesgo Producción, SL, successor in title to Viesgo Generación, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented by: F. Plasencia Sánchez, L. Ques Mena and L. de Pedro Martín, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7733 final of 27 November 2017, concerning State Aid SA.47912 (2017/NN) — Environmental incentive adopted by Spain in favour of coal-fired power plants, initiating the formal investigation procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Naturgy Energy Group, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Viesgo Producción, SL and EDP España, SA to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rodríguez Gómez v Council

(Case T-553/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki v Commission

(Joined Cases T-721/18 and T-81/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Grant agreements concluded in the context of various EU programmes - Breach of contractual terms by the beneficiary company - Eligible costs - OLAF investigation - Liquidation of the company - Recovery from the partners in the company - Enforcement - Allegations made by the representatives of the Commission before the national courts - Identification of the defendant - Failure to have regard to procedural requirements - Partial inadmissibility - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 95/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Zoï Apostolopoulou (Athens, Greece), Anastasia Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki (Athens) (represented by: D. Gkouskos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and T. Adamopoulos, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATIONS pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking, in essence, compensation for the damage which the applicants allegedly suffered as a result of the allegations made by the representatives of the Commission in the procedure for objecting to enforcement against them of the judgments of 16 July 2014, Isotis v Commission (T-59/11, EU:T:2014:679), and of 4 February 2016, Isotis v Commission (T-562/13, not published, EU:T:2016:63), before the Protodikeio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens, Greece) and the Efeteio Athinon (Court of Appeal, Athens, Greece).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Zoï Apostolopoulou and Ms Anastasia Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v Commission

(Case T-363/18) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price coordination throughout the EEA - Concerted practice - Exchanges of sensitive business information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Rights of the defence and right to be heard - Inalterability of the measure - Single and continuous infringement - Restriction of competition by object - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2021/C 471/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, M. Röhrig, I.-L. Stoicescu and P. Neideck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, B. Ernst, T. Franchoo, C. Sjödin and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40136 — Capacitors), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, annulment of the fine imposed on it by that decision or a reduction in the amount of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)

(Case T-69/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 61/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2018 (Case R 412/2018-1) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

(Case T-101/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark imot.bg - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 10/44)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2018 (Case R 999/2018-2) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign imot.bg as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rezon OOD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese)

(Case T-570/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a twisted cheese - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 106/2019-4) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a twisted cheese as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2020 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)

(Case T-331/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 95/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Balmain (Paris, France) (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá and S. Mainar Roger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2019 (Case R 1223/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pierre Balmain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Pontinova v EUIPO — Ponti & Partners (pontinova)

(Case T-76/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark pontinova - Earlier national word mark PONTI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relevant public - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion)

(2020/C 215/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pontinova AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Röh, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ponti & Partners, SLP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 566/2018 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ponti & Partners and Pontinova.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pontinova AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS)

(Case T-37/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CIMPRESS - Earlier EU figurative mark impress - Earlier national word mark Impress-Media - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 201/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cimpress Schweiz GmbH (Winterthur, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Impress Media GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Remmertz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2018 (Joined Cases R 1716/2017-2 and R 1786/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Impress Media and Cimpress Schweiz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Authorises Impress GmbH to replace Impress Media GmbH as intervener;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Cimpress Schweiz GmbH to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Impress.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — eSky Group IP v EUIPO — Gröpel (e)

(Case T-646/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark e - Earlier international figurative mark e - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 247/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gerhard Gröpel (Passau, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 (Case R 223/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Gröpel and eSky Group IP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES)

(Case T-333/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES - Earlier EU word mark GNC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, 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, intervener before the General Court: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Rijsdijk, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2019 (Case R 1343/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment and Mr Ntolas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Christos Ntolas to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by General Nutrition Investment Co.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — EP v Commission

(Case T-605/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Consideration of comparative merits)

(2020/C 339/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TEFU for annulment of the Commission decision of 13 November 2018 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9in the 2018 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 13 November 2018 not to promote EP to grade AD 9in the 2018 promotion exercise;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)

(Case T-114/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark B - Earlier international figurative mark b - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Misuse of power - Partial annulment)

(2020/C 271/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dan-Gabriel Pavel (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: E.-D. Nedelcu, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: bugatti GmbH (Herford, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between bugatti and Mr Pavel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘leather and imitations of leather; animal skins, hides’ in Class 18 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 each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.