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

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2022 — Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann v EUIPO — Cirillo (POMODORO)

(Case T-76/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark POMODORO - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Period for lodging - Article 58(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Facts or evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625 - Proof of genuine use)

(2022/C 119/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann GbR (Tübingen, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Francesco Cirillo (Berlin, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2020 (Case R 715/2020-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann and Mr Cirillo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann GbR to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the proceedings before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Établissement Amra v EUIPO — eXpresio (Shape of a rebound shoe)

(Case T-264/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU three-dimensional mark - Shape of a rebound shoe - 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 (EU) 2017/1001 - Presence of word elements - Lack of essential non-functional characteristics)

(2022/C 207/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gómez Calvo, 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: eXpresio, estudio creativo, SL (La Nucia, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1083/2020-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Établissement Amra and eXpresio, estudio creativo.

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 15 March 2021 (Case R 1083/2020-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — TA v Parliament

(Case T-314/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report 2019 - Fixing of objectives - Internal rules on staff reports - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 198/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of her staff report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2019, as amended by the decision of 29 March 2021 dismissing the claim in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-110/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - 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)

(2022/C 244/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, 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: B. Driessen and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 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 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Ilunga Kampete to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA)

(Case T-219/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRAMOSA - Earlier EU figurative mark TRAMO, SA TRANSPORTE MAQUINARIA Y OBRAS, S.A. - 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) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2022/C 237/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agora Invest, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, 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: Transportes Maquinaria y Obras, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 (Case R 566/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Transportes Maquinaria y Obras and Agora Invest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Agora Invest, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — Domator24.com Paweł Nowak v EUIPO — Siwek and Didyk (Armchair)

(Case T-256/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing an armchair - Earlier community design - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 25(1)(b) and Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2022/C 284/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Domator24.com Paweł Nowak (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawliczek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Piotr Siwek (Gdańsk, Poland), Sebastian Didyk (Gdańsk) (represented by: W. Gierszewski, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1275/2020-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Siwek and Mr Didyk and, on the other, Domator24.com Paweł Nowak.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Domator24.com Paweł Nowak to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)

(Case T-237/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FIS - Earlier EU word mark IFIS - 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))

(2022/C 257/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (Jacksonville, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Banca IFIS SpA (Mestre, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2021 (Case R 1460/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Banca IFIS and Fidelity National Information Services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR)

(Case T-478/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark BALLON D’OR - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Assessment of the evidence - Classification of the services)

(2022/C 340/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éditions P. Amaury (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and M. Laborde, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and T. Dolde and V. Pati, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 1073/2020-4).

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 7 June 2021 (Case R 1073/2020-4) in so far as it upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to revoke the mark in respect of the following services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended: ‘entertainment’, ‘television entertainment’ and ‘organisation of competitions (entertainment)’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — QI v Commission

(Case T-122/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Evaluation report - 2018 and 2019 evaluation exercises - Unsatisfactory evaluation of managerial performance - General implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Validation procedure - Principle of impartiality - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 303/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QI (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and L. Hohenecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Court Registry on 25 February 2022, the applicant seeks annulment of her evaluation reports drawn up for the 2018 and 2019 evaluation exercises and of the decision of 16 November 2020 rejecting her complaint against those reports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls QI’s evaluation report drawn up for the 2019 evaluation exercise;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Illumina v Commission

(Case T-227/21) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Pharmaceutical industry market - Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Referral request from a competition authority not having jurisdiction under national law to examine the concentration - Commission decision to examine the concentration - Commission decisions accepting requests from other national competition authorities to join the referral request - Competence of the Commission - Time limit for submitting the referral request - Concept of ‘made known’ - Reasonable time - Legitimate expectations - Public statements by the Vice-President of the Commission - Legal certainty)

(2022/C 359/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Illumina, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister, and P. Chappatte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, G. Conte and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grail LLC, formerly Grail, Inc. (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: D. Little, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado, J.M. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and A. Giraud, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: T. Stéhelin, P. Dodeller, J.-L. Carré and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and P. Huurnink, acting as Agents), EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Simpson, M. Sánchez Rydelski and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2021) 2847 final of 19 April 2021, accepting the request of the Autorité de la concurrence française (French Competition Authority) to examine the concentration relating to the acquisition by Illumina, Inc. of sole control over Grail, Inc. (Case COMP/M.10188 — Illumina/Grail), second, of Commission Decisions C(2021) 2848 final, C(2021) 2849 final, C(2021) 2851 final, C(2021) 2854 final and C(2021) 2855 final of 19 April 2021, accepting the requests of the Greek, Belgian, Norwegian, Icelandic and Dutch competition authorities to join that referral request, and third, of the Commission's letter of 11 March 2021 informing Illumina and Grail of that referral request.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Illumina, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Grail LLC to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Zdút v EUIPO — Nehera and Others (nehera)

(Case T-250/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 340/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ladislav Zdút (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: Y. Echevarría García, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Isabel Nehera, (Sutton, Ontario, Canada), Jean-Henri Nehera (Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada), Natacha Sehnal, (Montferrier-sur-Lez, France) (represented by: W. Woll, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 March 2021 (Case R 1216/2020-2).

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 10 March 2021 (Case R 1216/2020-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Mr Ladislav Zdút, including the necessary costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

3. Declares that Ms Isabel Nehera, Mr Jean-Henri Nehera and Ms Natacha Sehnal are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Portugal v Commission (Madeira Free Zone)

(Case T-95/21) (1)

(State aid - Madeira Free Zone - Aid scheme implemented by Portugal - Decision finding that the scheme does not comply with Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, declaring it to be incompatible with the internal market, and ordering the recovery of aid paid under that scheme - Concept of State aid - Existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Recovery - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle of sound administration - Absolute impossibility of implementation - Limitation - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

(2022/C 418/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Barros da Costa, A. Soares de Freitas and L. Borrego, acting as Agents, and by M. Gorjão-Henriques and A. Saavedra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Barcew and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Portuguese Republic seeks the annulment of Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Decision C(2020) 8550 final of the European Commission of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KTM Fahrrad v EUIPO — KTM (R2R)

(Case T-353/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark R2R - Declaration of revocation - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Proper reason for non-use)

(2022/C 418/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: KTM Fahrrad GmbH (Mattighofen, Austria) (represented by: V. Hoene, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: KTM AG (Mattighofen) (represented by: R. Erfurt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2021 (Case R 261/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KTM Fahrrad GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — G-Core Innovations v EUIPO — Coretransform (G CORELABS)

(Case T-454/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark G CORELABS - Earlier EU figurative mark CORE - 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))

(2022/C 463/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: G-Core Innovations Sàrl (Contern, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2021 (Case R 22/2021-2) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders G-Core Innovations Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-417/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a duck singing in a circle - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Similarity - Repute - Link - Unfair advantage - No due cause - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 432/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, 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: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. De Vietro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2021 (Case R 1017/2020-5) in relation to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Save the Duck SpA.

(1) OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-467/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 472/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DBM Videovertrieb GmbH (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: N. Lamsters and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2021 (Case R 1220/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DBM Videovertrieb GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.