ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

(Case T-297/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in a form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 349/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fashioneast Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), AM.VI. Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: A. Camusso and M. Baghetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Moschillo Srl (Avellino, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 (Case R 1381/2019-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Moschillo, on the one hand, and Fashioneast and AM.VI., on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fashioneast Sàrl and AM.VI. Srl to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — JA v Parliament

(Case T-156/20) (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 431/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor and N. Scafarto, 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 JA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — SBG v EUIPO — VF International (GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY)

(Case T-461/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 431/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Super Brand Licencing (SBG) (Villeurbanne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and A. Sion, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 (Case R 661/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VF International and SBG.

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 6 April 2020 (Case R 661/2019-1);

2. Orders EUIPO and VF International Sagl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-105/20) (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 452/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, 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 H. Marcos Fraile, 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 Éric Ruhorimbere 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 — Celler Lagravera v EUIPO — Cyclic Beer Farm (Cíclic)

(Case T-673/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 452/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Celler Lagravera, SLU (Alfarràs, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, 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: Cyclic Beer Farm, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 August 2020 (Case R 465/2020-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Cyclic Beer Farm and Celler Lagravera.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Celler Lagravera, SLU to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Guo v EUIPO — Sand Cph (sandriver)

(Case T-505/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark sandriver - Earlier EU word mark SAND - 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 481/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xiuling Guo (Shanghai, China) (represented by: L. Le Stanc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Mrozowski, A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sand Cph A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 (Case R 2019/2019-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Sand Cph and Ms Guo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Xiuling Guo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Al-Imam v Council

(Case T-203/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Right of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Damage to reputation)

(2021/C 462/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maher Al-Imam (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M. Brillat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 6), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those acts are directed against the applicant and, second, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr. Maher Al-Imam to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case T-429/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ - Earlier national word mark 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 490/42)

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 1303/2019-1), 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 1303/2019-1);

2. Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes;

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 Mr 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.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — 135 Kirkstall (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines)

(Case T-124/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign of which an EU trade mark may consist - Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to rule on the action - Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Cross-claim)

(2021/C 490/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: G. Glas, lawyer, D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, K. Hughes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz QC)

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: 135 Kirkstall, Inc., formerly Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, Washington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and J. Fish, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 2672/2017-G), relating to invalidity proceedings between Crafts Americana Group and M/S. Indeutsch International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 2672/2017-G);

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the main action;

3. Orders M/S. Indeutsch International and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by 135 Kirkstall, Inc., formerly Crafts Americana Group, Inc., in relation to the cross-claim and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders 135 Kirkstall, formerly Crafts Americana Group, to bear its own costs relating to the main action.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXXIMLA)

(Case T-239/20) (1)

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

(2022/C 2/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 (Case R 1879/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer and Stada Arzneimittel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 20.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO)

(Case T-596/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark DORMILLO - Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 (Case R 2846/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Flex Equipos de Descanso and Roller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Roller GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Rivella International (Riviva)

(Case T-551/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Riviva - Earlier EU word mark RIVELLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Partial rejection of the application for registration - 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) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, 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: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Pietzcker and C. Spintig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2020 (Case R 2420/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International and Jeronimo Martins Polska.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Di Bernado v Commission

(Case T-41/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Conditions of admission - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Insufficient professional experience - Article 266 TFEU - Decision adopted to give effect to a judgment of the General Court - Measures necessary to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment - Article 2 of Annex III to the Statute - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Liability)

(2022/C 11/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danilo Di Bernado (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 13 Mars 2019, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 29 November 2018, Di Bernardo v Commission (T-811/16, not published, EU:T:2018:859), not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support and, secondly, compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Danilo di Bernardo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 1195 final of 24 February 2020 concerning a confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in so far as it refused to grant JP access to the questions set out in the sections of the evaluation by the assessors of her answers during the field-related interview (Document No 1) headed ‘Anchor’ and ‘Possible questions’ and refused to grant access to the questions set out in the sections of the evaluation by the assessors of her answers during the general competency-based interview (Document No 2) headed ‘Situation 1’, ‘Situation 2’ and ‘Situation 3’ in the context of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)

(Case T-467/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ZARA - Earlier international word mark LE DELIZIE ZARA and earlier national figurative mark ZARA - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 37/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Ffauf Italia SpA (Riese Pio X, Italy) (represented by: P. Creta, A. Lanzarini, B. Costa and M. Lazzarotto, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 2040/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia and Inditex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — MW v Parliament

(Case T-630/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Political group - Dismissal - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Psychological harassment - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Liability)

(2022/C 119/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MW (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor and N. Scafarto, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 11 December 2019 to terminate the contract of employment of the applicant as a member of the temporary staff under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MW to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Skechers USA v EUIPO (ARCH FIT)

(Case T-598/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ARCH FIT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 95/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skechers USA, Inc. II (Manhattan Beach, California, United States) (represented by: T. Holman and A. Reid, Solicitors, and J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 (Case R 2631/2019-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ARCH FIT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Skechers USA, Inc. II to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.