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

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)

(Case T-296/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SUM011 - Prior figurative EU word mark Sumol and prior national word mark SUMOL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: J.M. Pimenta and A.M. Sebastião, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Heretat Mont-Rubi, SA (Font-Rubi, Spain)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 1662/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Heretat Mont-Rubi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)

(Case T-77/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark alcar.se - Earlier EU word mark ALCAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcar Aktiebolag (Bromma, Sweden) (represented by: M. Ateva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alcar Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 (Case R 378/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Alcar Holding and Alcar Aktiebolag.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alcar Aktiebolag to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)

(Case T-284/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KENWELL - Earlier EU word mark KENWOOD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wonder Line, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 (Case R 1351/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between De Longhi Benelux and Wonder Line.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wonder Line, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO — Gameloft (City Mania)

(Case T-381/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark City Mania - Earlier EU word mark City Lights - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gameloft SE (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 (Case R 976/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Gameloft.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER)

(Case T-550/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NOSTER - Earlier EU word mark FOSTER - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 271/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Kyoto, Japan) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, 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 General Court: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: C. de Callataÿ and T. de Haan, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 (Case R 2279/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Chiesi Farmaceutici and Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Oosterbosch v Parliament

(Case T-131/19) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Remuneration - Shiftwork allowance - Article 56a of the Staff Regulations - Legal certainty - Principle of legality - Concept of night work)

(2020/C 247/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marc Oosterbosch (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicant’s salary statements for the months of March, April and June 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Mr Marc Oosterbosch to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — WH v EUIPO

(Case T-138/19) (1)

(Civil service - Public officials - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Action for annulment - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Articles 76 and 78(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Comparison of the merits)

(2020/C 339/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 18 July 2018 by which EUIPO established a definitive list of the officials promoted in the context of the 2018 promotion exercise, in that that decision did not include the name of the applicant and, second, the decision of 18 December 2018 by which the competent appointing authority rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders WH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Austria Tabak v EUIPO — Mignot & De Block (AIR)

(Case T-800/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark AIR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Alteration of distinctive character)

(2020/C 339/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Austria Tabak GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mignot & De Block BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Körber, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 1665/2018 4), concerning revocation proceedings between Mignot & De Block and Austria Tabak.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Austria Tabak GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — FF v Commission

(Case T-654/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Directive 2014/40/EU - Use of a photograph in a library of warnings with pictures to be used for tobacco products - Directive 2014/109/EU - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2020/C 390/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FF (represented by: A. Fittante, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the unauthorised use of a photograph that he regards as representing him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FF to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-292/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 390/42)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by R. Pekař and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 –Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission

(Case T-249/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Remuneration - Decision refusing entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of removal expenses and travel costs on taking up duties - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Diplomatic status - Five-year reference period - Concept of ‘habitual residence’)

(2020/C 433/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission decision of 14 June 2018 refusing the applicant entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of travel costs on taking up duties and of removal expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Polfarmex v EUIPO — Kaminski (SYRENA)

(Case T-677/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SYRENA - Genuine use of the mark - Extent of use - Proof of use - Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 399/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: E. Pijewska, M. Mazurek and W. Trybowski, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Polfarmex and Mr Kaminski.

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 11 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2) to the extent that it upheld the registration of the European Union trade mark No 9262767 in respect of ‘cars’ in Class 12 other than ‘racing cars’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo v EUIPO — Embutidos Monells (5MS MMMMM)

(Case T-639/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 5MS MMMMM - Earlier EU figurative mark 5J - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 28/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, SAU (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Embutidos Monells, SA (San Miguel de Balenya, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 (Case R 1728/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo and Embutidos Monells.

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 24 July 2019 (Case R 1728/2018-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO and Embutidos Monells, SA to bear their respective costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, SAU.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2020 — AD v ECHA

(Case T-25/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contracts - Decision not to renew - Duty of care - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard - Duty to state reasons - Liability)

(2021/C 9/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AD (represented by: N. Flandin and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: C.-M. Bergerat and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment, in substance, first, of ECHA’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract and, second, of the vacancy notice for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of contract staff for function group II published on 9 March 2018 and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of 28 March 2018 and the vacancy notice of 9 March 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Ace of spades v EUIPO — Krupp and Borrmann (JC JEAN CALL Champagne GRANDE RÉSERVE)

(Case T-621/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark JC JEAN CALL Champagne GRANDE RÉSERVE - Earlier three-dimensional EU trade marks - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 35/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany), Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 (Case R 2/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ace of spades Holdings and Messrs Krupp and Borrmann.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 June 2019 (Case R 2/2019-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Ace of spades Holdings LLC and rejected the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)

(Case T-874/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Flaming Forties - Earlier national figurative mark 40 FLAMING FRUITS - 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))

(2021/C 28/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Lecheva, 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: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria) (represented by: K. Manev, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 2304/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Games Technology and Impera.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Impera GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Marc Folschette and Others v Commission

(Case T-884/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Investigation by OLAF - Information technology contract - Corruption - Trading in influence - Final report recommending the bringing of criminal proceedings - Final acquittal by a criminal court - Period of limitation - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2021/C 72/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Marc Folschette (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Tetyana Grygorenko (Leudelange), Professional Business Solutions SA (Leudelange) (represented by: N. Bauer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Blanc, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the conduct of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the context of an internal investigation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marc Folschette, Tetyana Grygorenko and Professional Business Solutions SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)

(Case T-535/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JCE HOTTINGUER - Non-registered earlier national trade mark HOTTINGER - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Rules governing common law actions for passing-off - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, respectively))

(2021/C 53/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H.R. Participations SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, J. Rossi, E. Dumur and G. Hadot-Pericard, 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: Hottinger Investment Management Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Sander, Solicitor, and M. Beebe, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2019 (Case R 2078/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hottinger Investment Management and H.R. Participations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H.R. Participations SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.