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

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Davide Groppi v EUIPO — Viabizzuno (Table lamp)

(Case T-187/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a table lamp - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2021/C 310/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Davide Groppi Srl (Piacenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Capra and V. Malerba, lawyers)

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: Viabizzuno Srl (Bentivoglio, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 (Case R 126/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Viabizzuno and Davide Groppi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders David Groppi Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro)

(Case T-256/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark GluePro - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 263/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstein, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 (Case R 2516/2019-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign GluePro as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Steinel GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)

(Case T-362/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark REACCIONA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Existence of domestic legal proceedings - No proper reason for non-use)

(2021/C 329/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Acciona SA (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, 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, intervener before the General Court: Agencia Negociadora PB SL (Las Rozas de Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 652/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Agencia Negociadora PB and Acciona.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Acciona SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Agencia Negociadora PB SL.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE BARCELONA)

(Case T-227/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 329/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, 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: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 1661/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugène Perma France and Biovene Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Biovene Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament

(Case T-171/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of law - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 357/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 27 241 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Robert Rochefort to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Stark Gugger)

(Case T-181/20) (1)

(Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety - Technical examination - Testing location - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 349/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft (Terlano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. Ekvad, O. Lamberti and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 January 2020 (Case A 008/2018) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — IZ v Parliament

(Case T-155/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Political group - Dismissal - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard - Equal treatment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Principle of sound administration - Liability)

(2021/C 431/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. González Argüelles and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 4 July 2019 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, second, compensation for the non-material harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders IZ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)

(Case T-96/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types - Absolute grounds for refusal - Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Referral of the case back to the Grand Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Error of law - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Res judicata - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Composition of the Grand Board of Appeal)

(2021/C 422/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 (Case R 1276/2017-G), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Types as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2019 (Case R 1276/2017-G);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

(Case T-95/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Freshly Cosmetics v EUIPO — Misiego Blázquez (IDENTY BEAUTY)

(Case T-688/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark IDENTY BEAUTY - Earlier national figurative mark IDENTITY THE IMAGE CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 452/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Freshly Cosmetics, SL (Reus, Spain) (represented by: P. Roiger Bellostes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Francisco Misiego Blázquez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Salas Martín, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2020 (Case R 205/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Misiego Blázquez and Freshly Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Freshly Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Società agricola Vivai Maiorana and Others v Commission

(Case T-116/20) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 - Protective measures against pests of plants - List of Union regulated non-quarantine pests - Threshold above which the presence of a Union regulated non-quarantine pest on plants for planting has an unacceptable economic impact - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 - Professional Associations - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Admissibility - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 471/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Società agricola Vivai Maiorana Ss (Curinga, Italy), Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori — CIA (Rome, Italy), MIVA — Moltiplicatori Italiani Viticoli Associati (Faenza, Italy) (represented by: E.Scoccini and G. Scoccini, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Emmerechts, A. Vitro and S. Barbagallo, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Knudsen and G. Mendola, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of parts A, B, C, F, I and J of annex IV to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2019 (JO 2019, L 319, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Società agricola Vivai Maiorana Ss, Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori — CIA and MIVA — Moltiplicatori Italiani Viticoli Associati to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Marina Yachting Brand Management v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear (MARINA YACHTING)

(Case T-169/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Proceedings for the revocation of decisions or for the cancellation of entries - Cancellation of an entry in the register which contains an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Trade mark involved in insolvency proceedings - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Effects vis-à-vis third parties of bankruptcy or similar proceedings - Competence of EUIPO - Duty of diligence - Articles 20, 24, 27 and 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Articles 3, 7 and 19 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848)

(2021/C 462/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Industries Sportswear Co. Srl (Venice, Italy) (represented by: P. Cervato, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Joined Cases R 252/2019-2 and R 253/2019-2), relating to proceedings between Industries Sportswear and Marina Yachting Brand Management regarding the cancellation of entries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Industries Sportswear Co. Srl.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T-436/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ - Earlier national and international word marks ERGOPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - No 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 490/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, N. Gottschalk and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

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 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;

4. Orders Wolfgang Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Indo European Foods v EUIPO — Chakari (Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World’s Best Rice)

(Case T-342/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World’s Best Rice - Earlier non-registered word mark BASMATI - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom - Transition period - Interest in bringing proceedings - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common law actions for passing off - Likelihood of misrepresentation - Likelihood of dilution of the reputation of the earlier mark)

(2021/C 481/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Indo European Foods Ltd (Harrow, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister, and N. Welch, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hamid Ahmad Chakari (Vienna, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1079/2019 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Indo European Foods and Mr Chakari.

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 2 April 2020 (Case R 1079/2019-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Indo European Foods Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 –AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)

(Case T-353/20) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ACM 1899 AC MILAN - Earlier national word marks Milan - 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) - Proof of 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) - No alteration of distinctive character)

(2022/C 2/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, V. Ruzek and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 (Case R 161/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft and AC Milan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) to pay the costs, with the exception of the travel expenses incurred by the latter;

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear the travel expenses incurred by AC Milan.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua (Vital like nature)

(Case T-351/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Vital like nature - Earlier EU figurative mark VITAL - 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 502/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (Dielheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Raisioaqua Oy (Raisio, Finland) (represented by: K. Rantala, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 1279/2019-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Raisioaqua and St. Hippolyt Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk)

(Case T-434/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark dziandruk - Absolute ground for invalidity - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Piotr Włodarczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: M. Bohaczewski and A. Zalewska, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ave Investment sp. z o.o. (Pabianice) (represented by: K. Błach Morysińska, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 2192/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Włodarczyk and Ave Investment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Piotr Włodarczyk to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.