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

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)

(Case T-543/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 359/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Purasac Co. Ltd (Anyang-si, South Korea) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (Aurora, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: R. Lyxell, lawyer)

Re:

By its action brought 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 2 July 2021 (Case R 146/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Purasac Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)

(Case T-287/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SALATINA - 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 340/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

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 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-448/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines - Action for annulment - Express decision adopted after implied refusal of access - No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action - Partial refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

(2022/C 418/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of the European Commission of 2 June 2021, granting him full access to certain documents and partial access to other documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-651/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines - Action for annulment - Express decisions adopted after implied refusal of access - No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action - Total and partial refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

(2022/C 418/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of the European Commission of 11 August 2021, granting him partial access to certain documents and refusing access to other documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Protectoplus v EUIPO (Li-SAFE)

(Case T-795/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Li-SAFE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

(2022/C 432/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Protectoplus (Rendsburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2021 (Case R 845/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Protectoplus GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech)

(Case T-737/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark e-tech - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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

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 9 September 2021 (Case R 548/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Agrofert v Parliament

(Case T-174/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the investigation against the former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on the misuse of EU funds and potential conflicts of interest - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Interest in bringing proceedings in part ceasing to exist - No need to adjudicate in part - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 463/38)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Agrofert a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Sobolová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, J.-C. Puffer and O. Hrstková Šolcová, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, M. Salyková and J. Hradil, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision A(2019) 8551 C (D 300153) of the European Parliament of 15 January 2021, by which it refused the applicant access to two documents relating to the investigation against the former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on misuse of European funds and potential conflicts of interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Decision A(2019) 8551 C (D 300153) of the European Parliament of 15 January 2021, in so far as it refused access to the Commission’s final audit report of 29 November 2019, bearing reference ARES 2019 7370050, relating to the audit on the functioning of the management and control systems in place in the Czech Republic for the purpose of preventing conflicts of interests;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Agrofert, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)

(Case T-656/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS - Earlier EU figurative mark HCapital - Relative ground for refusal - Relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H/2 Credit Manager LP (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and N. Schmitz, 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: Hcapital Partners SCR, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: V. Stilwell de Andrade, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on 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 16 July 2021 (Case R 1954/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H/2 Credit Manager LP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE)

(Case T-601/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WELLMONDE - Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 7/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wellstat Therapeutics Corp. (Rockville, Maryland, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on 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 23 June 2021 (Case R 1776/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)

(Case T-460/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark C2 CYPRUS CASINOS - Earlier national figurative mark C8 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Interdependence of factors - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 472/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Georges-Picot and C. Cuny, lawyers)

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 26 May 2021 (Case R 908/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 908/2020-2) in so far as it relates to services for which only a low degree of similarity was found;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd, EUIPO and C8 to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Allessa v EUIPO — Dumerth (CASSELLAPARK)

(Case T-701/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - EU word mark CASSELLAPARK - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 35/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Allessa GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, M. Hartmann and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carim Dumerth (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: T. Wieland and C. Corbet, 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 11 August 2021 (Case R 1043/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rejects the appeal;

2. Orders Allessa GmbH to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Heinze (K K WATER)

(Case T-610/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark K K WATER - Earlier EU figurative mark K - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 15/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Arne-Patrik Heinze (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Dauskardt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2020-2).

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 21 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2020-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by L’Oréal, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

3. Orders Mr Arne-Patrik Heinze to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 July 2022 — RT France v Council

(Case T-125/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Temporary ban on broadcasting and suspension of authorisations to broadcast the content of certain media - Inclusion on the list of entities to which restrictive measures apply - Powers of the Council - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Freedom of expression and information - Proportionality - Freedom to conduct a business - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality)

(2022/C 340/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica and M. Nguyen Chanh, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, R. Meyer and S. Emmerechts, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, M. Van Regemorter and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents), Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg and M. Kriisa, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, J.-L. Carré, W. Zemamta and T. Stéhelin, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Pommere, J. Davidoviča, I. Hūna, D. Ciemiņa and V. Borodiņeca, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Karolis and V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and A. Miłkowska, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Calleja Crespo, V. Di Bucci, J.-F. Brakeland and M. Carpus Carcea, acting as Agents), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (represented by: F. Hoffmeister, L. Havas and M. A. De Almeida Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/351 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 65, p. 5), and of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/350 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 65, p. 1), in so far as those acts relate to it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders RT France to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Estonia, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland, the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 173/15

Order of the General Court of 8 April 2011 — Bakkers v Council and Commission

(Case T-146/97) (1)

2011/C 173/31

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/18

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v Commission

(Case T-218/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 71/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia, Italy); Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia) (represented initially by: G. Boscolo, and subsequently by A. Boscolo, lawyers); and Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Volpe and C. Montagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance;

2. The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

3. Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl and Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. are to bear the Commission’s costs in addition to their own costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 21.10.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/44

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission

(Case T-234/00) (1)

2011/C 347/77

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 4, 6.1.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/42

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Hynix Semiconductor v Council

(Case T-383/03) (1)

(2009/C 6/83)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/38

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 December 2007 — Dascalu v Commission

(Case T-430/03) (1)

(Staff cases - Officials - Interlocutory judgment - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 64/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Iosif Dascalu (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, originally, and subsequently by C. Berardis-Kayser and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission's decisions of 23 December 2002 and 14 April 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as they fix his classification in step on recruitment in step 1 of Grade A6, and fix 5 October 1995 as the date on which the decisions were to have pecuniary effect, and did not re-establish the applicant's career grade and, in so far as necessary, an application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant's complaints and, second, an application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those decisions

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

2. The Commission shall pay all the costs.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/48

Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2008 — Germany and Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-490/04 and T-493/04) (1)

(2008/C 171/92)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/48

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bactria v Commission

(Case T-401/04) (1)

2010/C 37/71

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.