ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-111/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2018 — Prada v EUIPO — The Rich Prada International (THE RICH PRADA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark THE RICH PRADA — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks PRADA — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation(EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2018 — Prada v EUIPO — The Rich Prada International (THE RICH PRADA)

(Case T-111/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark THE RICH PRADA — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks PRADA — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation(EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)’

Parties

Applicant: Prada SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, 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: The Rich Prada International PT (Surabaya, Indonesia) (represented by: Y. Zhou, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2016 (Joined Cases R 3076/2014-2 and R 3186/2014-2), as rectified on 14 March 2017, relating to opposition proceedings between Prada and The Rich Prada International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Prada SA to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Pallas Halloumi)

(Case T-825/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Pallas Halloumi - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - 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)))

(2018/C 352/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against an appeal brought before the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2065/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Enoitalia SpA v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)

(Case T-707/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ANTONIO RUBINI - Earlier EU figurative mark RUTINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 301/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enoitalia SpA (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina).

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 (Case R 1085/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas and Enoitalia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enoitalia SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)

(Case T-62/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PUMA - Earlier international figurative trade marks PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, South Korea) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented by: R. Böhm and S. Overhage, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd.

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 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Puma SE;

3. Orders Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

(Case T-654/16) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Lasting change in circumstances - Sampling - Individual examination - No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures))

(2018/C 381/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd. (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França, T. Maxian Rusche, N. Kuplewatzky and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4259 final of 11 July 2016 rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of an L-shaped groove)

(Case T-447/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing an L-shaped groove - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 - Application of the law ratione temporis - Shape of the goods - Nature of the sign - Account taken of material relevant to identifying the essential characteristics of the sign - General interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2019/C 4/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

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

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Martucci and I. Gatto, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yokohama Rubber and Pirelli Tyre.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014 5);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA;

3. Orders Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — PD v EIB

(Case T-615/16) (1)

(Civil service - Personnel of the EIB - Psychological harassment - Total and permanent disability - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Action brought before the closure of the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PD (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, in essence, an order that the EIB compensate the applicant for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of psychological harassment at the hands of his line manager and the failure on the part of the EIB to take appropriate measures to address that situation and to protect his health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as being inadmissible;

2. Orders PD and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-45/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2018 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission

(Case T-875/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Evaluation report of a notified body within the meaning of the legislation on EC declarations of conformity of medical devices - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of commercial interests - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest - Partial refusal of access))

(2019/C 44/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Falcon Technologies International LLC (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: R. Sciaudone and G. Arpea, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6722 final of 14 October 2016 refusing to grant the applicant access to the document (DG (Santé) 2015-7552.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 6722 final of 14 October 2016, in so far as it refused partial access to the document DG (Santé) 2015-7552;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Falcon Technologies International LLC and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission

(Case T-518/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials and members of the contractual staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - New provisions relating to annual leave applicable to officials posted in a third country - Objection of illegality - Purpose of annual leave))

(2019/C 44/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Francisco Carreras Sequeros (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and the five other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and E. Taneva, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents),

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave of the applicants as from 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave for 2014 of Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the European Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment, and

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

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-88/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Pipiliagkas v Commission

(Case T-689/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Assignment - Decision with retroactive effect - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Authority lacking competence - Liability - Compensation in respect of material and non-material harm))

(2019/C 82/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nikolaos Pipiliagkas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara and subsequently by G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit ‘Career and performance management’ of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, concerning the reassignment of the applicant with retroactive effect, and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm which he claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit ‘Career and performance management’ of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, concerning the reassignment of Mr Nikolaos Pipiliagkas with effect from 1 January 2013;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of the costs of Mr Pipiliagkas;

4. Orders Mr Pipiliagkas to bear half of his own costs.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-165/16) (1)

((State aid - Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Access to the file - Right to be heard))

(2019/C 82/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, L. Armati, and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/287 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.26500 — 2012/C (ex 2011/NN, ex CP 227/2008) implemented by Germany for Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH and Ryanair Ltd (OJ 2016 L 59, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-414/16) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)

(2019/C 139/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Drex Technologies SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2019 — HJ v EMA

(Case T-881/16) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary agents - Partial inadmissibility - Application for an injunction - Access of officials to their personal file - Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Personal file made accessible to all members of staff of the EMA - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies - Liability - Non-material harm))

(2019/C 93/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: I. Ratescu and F. Cooney, acting as Agents, and S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, compensation in respect of the non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered following the disclosure of his personal file to all members of staff of the EMA and, second, the withdrawal of two documents from that file.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to pay HJ the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the EMA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by HJ.

(1) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stemcor London and Samac Steel Supplies v Commission

(Case T-749/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Registration of imports - Retroactive application of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 - Importer’s awareness of the dumping and injury - Further substantial rise in imports likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 10(4)(c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)

(2019/C 220/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Stemcor London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Samac Steel Supplies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, N. Kuplewatzky, T. Maxian Rusche and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and S. Seeuws, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 of 29 July 2016 levying the definitive anti-dumping duty on the registered imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (OJ 2016 L 210, p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Stemcor London Ltd and Samac Steel Supplies Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.