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

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Segimerus v EUIPO — Karsten Manufacturing (MONSOON)

(Case T-627/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONSOON - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 34 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 418/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Segimerus Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Karsten Manufacturing Corp. (Phoenix, Arizona, United States) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on 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 16 July 2021 (Case R 1125/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Segimerus Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Karsten Manufacturing Corp.

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPAL TREE)

(Case T-572/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 463/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Copal Tree Brands, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: B. Niemann Fadani, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under 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 6 July 2021 (Case R 1580/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Copal Tree Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH)

(Case T-498/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark BLACK IRISH - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lotion LLC (Woodland Hills, California, United States) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 199/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lotion LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2022) 870 final of 7 February 2022, in so far as it refused Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure access to the following documents: — an annex to the bid submitted by AstraZeneca (document No 1.2); — a document of 12 June 2020 exchanged between AstraZeneca and the governments of a number of Member States for the negotiation and conclusion of a financing contract (document No 2); — a draft financing contract sent by AstraZeneca on 24 June 2020 to the governments of a number of Member States (document No 3); — a document of 20 November 2020 concerning the second payment instalment provided for in the advance purchase agreement concluded with AstraZeneca (document No 5); — the presentations used by AstraZeneca during the meetings of the Steering Committee of 4 December 2020, 22 January, 1, 11, 19 and 23 February and 11 March 2021 (document No 6); — a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of 7 December 2020 (document No 7); — a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of 19 January 2021 (document No 8); — a document relating to the vaccine delivery dates (document No 9) with five annexes (documents No 9.1 to No 9.5); — a presentation used by AstraZeneca during a meeting of the Steering Committee of 25 January 2021 (document No 10); — part of the emails exchanged between the Commission and AstraZeneca on 27 July 2020 (document No 11);
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission

(Case T-352/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Selection of partners to carry out Europe Direct (2021-2025) activities in Greece - Call for proposals procedure - Eligibility criteria - Rejection of application)

(2022/C 463/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: S. Vardalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision Ares (2021) 2580204 contained in the European Commission’s letter of 16 April 2021 informing it of the rejection of its proposal in the context of the procedure for the selection of partners to carry out the activities of the Europe Direct programme in Greece (ED-GREECE-2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022 — Gameageventures v EUIPO — (GAME TOURNAMENTS)

(Case T-776/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark GAME TOURNAMENTS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)

(2023/C 7/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gameageventures LLP (Folkestone, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

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

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 5 October 2021 (Case R 211/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gameageventures LLP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Representation of black and white lines)

(Case T-502/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing black and white lines - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 472/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

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

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 26 May 2021 (Case R 78/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T-130/21) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging - Decision adjusting the amount of a fine - Calculation of the fine - Imputability of unlawful conduct - 2006 Guidelines on the method for setting fines - Upper limit of the fine - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Ability to pay)

(2023/C 35/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox Group SpA (Bibbiano, Italy), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Cucchiara and E. Rocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and T. Baumé, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 8940 final of 17 December 2020 adjusting the amount of the fines imposed by Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail Food Packaging).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox Group SpA and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2022 — Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO — Epsilon Technologies (EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES)

(Case T-512/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Nature of the use - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Use in connection with the services in respect of which the mark was registered)

(2023/C 24/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Epsilon Data Management LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Bussé and C. De Preter, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Epsilon Technologies, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó and E. Felip Corrius, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1611/2020-5 and R 1839/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Epsilon Data Management LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Epsilon Technologies, SL.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — uwe JetStream v EUIPO (JET STREAM)

(Case T-14/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark JET STREAM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 24/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: uwe JetStream GmbH (Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneider and C. Nemec, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 November 2021 (Case R 1092/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders uwe JetStream GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/35

Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 May 2008 — Ypma v Council and Commission

(Case T-9/94) (1)

(2008/C 197/60)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1) OJ C 59, 26.2.1994.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/25

Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Département du Loiret v Commission

(Case T-369/00) (1)

(State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Agreement by which all the assets of the recipient of the aid were transferred to the authorities which granted the aid - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 108/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Département du Loiret (France) (represented by: A. Carnelutti, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

2. The Département du Loiret shall pay the costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/22

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Bauer v Commission

(Case T-253/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Bauer SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. M. Roberti, F. Sciaudone and A. Bortoluzzi, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: The Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

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 of the case.

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

3. Bauer SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-241/03 REV) (1)

(Proceedings - Review - Consequences of a later judgment of the General Court - New fact - Absence - Inadmissibility)

(2012/C 331/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for revision of the Order of the General Court of 17 May 2006 in Case T-241/03 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC I-A-2-111 and II-A-2-517.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/35

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Katalagarianakis v Commission

(Case T-402/03) (1)

(2008/C 197/61)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/30

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2008 — FagorBrandt v Commission

(Case T-273/04) (1)

(2008/C 183/56)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/58

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2014 — Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission

(Case T-450/04 RENV) (1)

2014/C 292/71

Language of the case: French

The President of the Sixth 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 301/34

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2008 — Rousseaux v Commission

(Case T-125/04) (1)

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

(2008/C 301/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Rousseaux (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 14 April 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as it fixes his classification in step on recruitment in step 2 of Grade A6, fixes 5 October 1995 as the date on which the decision was to have pecuniary effect and did not re-establish the applicant's career grade, and an application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint and, second, an application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by that decision.

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 118, 30.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/29

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2008 — ASTER v Commission

(Case T-409/05) (1)

(2008/C 116/54)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/47

Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

(Case T-16/05) (1)

(State aid - Recapitalisation of a public service broadcaster following a first decision ordering the recovery of incompatible State aid - Decision not to raise objections - Annulment of the first decision - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 282/89

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Niejahr, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: SBS TV A/S, formerly TV Danmark A/S (Skovlunde, Denmark); and SBS Danish Televsion Ltd, formerly Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd (Hounslow, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented inititially by D. Vandermeersch, K.-U. Karl, K. Nordlander and H. Peytz, and subsequently by D. Vandermeersch, K.-U. Karl and H. Peytz, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark, (represented by: J. Molde, Agent, and by P. Biering and K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyers); and TV 2/Danmark A/S (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard and M. Thorninger, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 3632 final of 6 October 2004 relating to the recapitalisation of TV 2/Danmark A/S.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no further need to adjudicate on this action;

2. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/61

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-26/05) (1)

(2008/C 301/104)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/25

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission

(Case T-236/06) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regional parliament - Lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 142/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) (represented by: S. Laskowski and J. Caspar)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Ladenburger)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the Commission decisions of 10 March and 23 June 2006 refusing to grant the applicant access to document SEK(2005) 420 of 22 March 2005, containing a legal analysis of a draft framework decision, under discussion in the Council, on the retention of data processed and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or data on public communications networks for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. It is not necessary to rule on the applications to intervene;

3. Landtag Schleswig-Holstein shall bear its own costs and pay the Commission's costs, except those relating to the applications to intervene;

4. Landtag Schleswig-Holstein, the Commission, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications to intervene.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/28

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2008 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission

(Case T-151/06) (1)

(Dumping - Reimbursement of anti-dumping duties - Annulment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate - Rules governing costs)

(2008/C 92/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Stancanelli and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1183 final of 3 April 2006 rejecting in part the applications for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties levied on imports of silicon originating in Russia

Operative part of the order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.