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

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Krka v Commission

(Case T-684/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Patent dispute settlement agreement - Licensing agreement - Technology acquisition agreement - Restriction of competition by object - Restriction of competition by effect - Balance between competition law and patent law))

(2019/C 82/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Krka Tovarna Zdravil d.d. (Novo Mesto, Slovenia) (represented by T. Ilešič and M. Kocmut, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU (Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)) in so far as it finds that Krka Tovarna Zdravil d.d. participated in the agreements referred to in that article;

2. Annuls Article 7(4)(a) of Decision C(2014) 4955 final;

3. Annuls Articles 8 and 9 of Decision C(2014) 4955 final, in so far as they concern Krka Tovarna Zdravil;

4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2018 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-664/14) (1)

((State Aid - Aid implemented by Belgium for the benefit of financial cooperatives in the ARCO Group - Guarantee scheme protecting the shares held by individual members of those cooperatives - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and prohibiting the payment of guaranteed amounts to individual members - Subject matter of the dispute - Recovery - Proportionality))

(2019/C 72/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and J. Meyers, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives (OJ 2014 L 284, p. 53).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/29

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament

(Case T-321/15) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to produce prior authorisation issued pursuant to national legislation - Proportionality - Equal Treatment - Principle of openness - Freedom to provide services))

(2016/C 007/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decisions, contained in the letter of 12 June 2015, by which the Parliament informed the applicants, first, of the rejection of the tender submitted by them in respect of the open tendering procedure EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons (part 1) and external surveillance (part 2) at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels (O 2014/S 246-433095) and, secondly, that the relevant contract had been awarded to another company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/39

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Hydrex v Commission

(Case T-45/15) (1)

((Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment - Recovery order - Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Errors of assessment - Force majeure))

(2016/C 156/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015 relating to recovery order No 3241405101 issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 540 721,10.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hydrex NV to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/23

Judgment of the General Court of 19 February 2016 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY)

(Case T-30/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark INFINITY - Earlier Community word mark INFINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 111/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (Delta, Canada) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd (Changhua, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 (Case R 2308/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd, and Infinite Cycle Works Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Infinite Cycle Works Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/20

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission

(Case T-496/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Rights of the defence - Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations - Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Principle of proportionality - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 232/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CX (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, CX v Commission (F-27/13, EU:F:2015:60), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders CX to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga)

(Case T-54/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Liiga - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2014 (Case R 576/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Liiga as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/33

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)

(Case T-431/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FRUIT - Genuine use of a mark - Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - External use of the mark))

(2016/C 305/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2015 (case R 1641/2014-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Takko Holding and Fruit of the Loom

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 12 May 2015 (Case R 1641/2014-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of Fruit of the Loom, Inc.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/26

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)

(Case T-99/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark NOOSFERA - Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA, Sfera colours and sfera CENTROS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 158/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sfera Joven and Las banderas del Mediterráneo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sfera Joven, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/38

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Globo Comunicação e Participações v EUIPO (sound mark)

(Case T-408/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for a sound mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 392/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: E. Gaspar and M.-E. De Moro-Giafferri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2015 (Case R 2945/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of a sound mark as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/13

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Beiersdorf v EUIPO (Q10)

(Case T-4/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Q10 - Refusal to register a disclaimer as to the scope of the protection - Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive Character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 383/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, and subsequently by J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2014 (Case R 2050/2013-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Q10 as an EU trademark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Beiersdorf AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/18

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Sun Cali v EUIPO — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)

(Case T-512/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SUN CALI - Earlier national figurative mark CaLi co - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Representation before the Board of Appeal - Real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Union - Legal persons with economic connections - Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 410/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Cali, Inc. (Denver, Colorado, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas, 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: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1260/2014-5 and R 1281/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Abercrombie & Fitch Europe and Sun Cali.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sun Cali, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/41

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — AEDEC v Commission

(Case T-91/15) (1)

((Technological research and development - ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation - Calls for proposals in respect of work programmes 2014-2015 - Commission decision declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Openness - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 402/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación Española para el Desarrollo de la Epidemiología Clínica (AEDEC) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. López López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Ruiz García and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of 4 September 2014 in which the Commission rejected the request for financing submitted by the applicant on behalf of the consortium Latin Plan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Asociación Española para el Desarrollo de la Epidemiología Clínica (AEDEC) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v EUIPO (BRAUWELT)

(Case T-56/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for European Union word mark BRAUWELT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 441/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1121/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BRAUWELT as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/43

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Kozmetika Afrodita v EUIPO — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (AFRODITA COSMETICS)

(Case T-575/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark AFRODITA COSMETICS - Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/57)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pedro Núñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2015 (case R 2578/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Núñez Martín and Ms Machado Montesinos and, on the other, Kozmetika Afrodita.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/34

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Trivisio Prototyping v Commission

(Case T-184/15) (1)

((Funding - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts concerning the projects ULTRA, CINeSPACE and IMPROVE - Partial reclassification of the action - Enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Recovery of sums paid))

(2017/C 006/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Trivisio Prototyping GmbH (Trier, Germany) (represented initially by A. Bartosch and A. Böhlke, and subsequently by A. Böhlke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as agents, and R. van der Hout and S. Blazek, lawyers)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 633 final of 2 February 2015 concerning recovery of the sum of EUR 385 112,19 together with interest and, second, application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt claimed by the Commission against Trivisio Prototyping is non-existent.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Trivisio Prototyping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/21

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Spa Monopole v EUIPO — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)

(Case T-625/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE - Earlier Benelux word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 462/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) (represented by: M. Edenborough, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2015 (Case R 1954/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA and YTL Hotels & Properties.

Operative part of the judgment

1) The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 September 2015 (Case R 1954/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA and YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd is annulled in so far as it rejects the opposition to registration of the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE, in respect of ‘services consisting of the provision of food and drink; cafés restaurants; cafeterias; snack-bars; self-service restaurants; hotel restaurant services; restaurant services; catering and buffet services; bar services; hotel services’ in Class 43 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.

2) EUIPO and YTL Hotels & Properties are ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/43

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Printeos and Others v Commission

(Case T-95/15) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Coordination of sales prices and allocation of customers - Settlement procedure - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 030/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Tompla Sobre Exprés, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France SARL (Fleury-Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2(1)(e) of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes).;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.