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

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)

(Case T-355/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA - Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 294/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1974/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — LR v EIB

(Case T-529/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Resettlement allowance - Establishment of a member of staff’s residence in his or her own home after leaving the service of the EIB - Second indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the EIB Staff Rules - Concept of ‘home’ - Literal interpretation according to a prevailing language version - Unlimited jurisdiction - Dispute of a financial character - Admissibility)

(2022/C 418/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: LR (represented by: J.L. Gómez de la Cruz Coll and M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: A.V. García Sánchez and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and by A. Manzaneque Valverde and J. Rivas de Andrés, lawyers)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 9 January 2020 refusing him the benefit of the resettlement allowance and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay the resettlement allowance, together with default interest calculated at the European Central Bank (ECB) rate, increased by two percentage points.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 9 January 2020 refusing to grant LR the benefit of the resettlement allowance;

2. Orders the EIB to pay to LR the allowance referred to in point 1 of the operative part, plus default interest, from 4 September 2019 until the date of actual payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points;

3. Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)

(Case T-768/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark The Standard - Declaration of revocation - Place of the use of the mark - Advertisements and offers for sale to consumers in the EU - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001keywords)

(2022/C 359/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Standard International Management LLC (New York, New York (United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, S. Wickenden, Barrister, and M. Maier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

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 27 November 2020 (Case R 828/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 November 2020 (Case R 828/2020-5) as regards the services in Classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Standard International Management LLC, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Sogia Ellas v Commission

(Case T-347/20) (1)

(State aid - Activities linked to the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products - Aid schemes granted by Greece in the form of interest subsidies and State guarantees on existing and new loans to compensate for damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences - Decision declaring the aid schemes incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Aid limited to disaster-hit geographical areas - Advantage - Selectivity - Market economy operator principle - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Length of the procedure - Protection of legitimate expectations - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589)

(2022/C 482/24)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sogia Ellas AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Bernitsas, M. Androulakaki, A. Patsalia and E. Kalogiannis, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Myloi Sogias AE (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2020/394 of 7 October 2019 concerning the measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees linked to the fires of 2007 (the present decision covers only the agricultural sector) (OJ 2020 L 76, p. 4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sogia Ellas AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Myloi Sogias AE to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — QF v Commission

(Case T-85/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) - Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings - No communication of the intermediate marks or the weighting of the elements of a test specified in the competition notice)

(2022/C 73/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QF (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — Administrators of 15 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of that selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the selection board for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — Administrators of 15 April 2020 not to include QF on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 6 in the field of European public administration;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 22.3.2021
Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Griesbeck v Parliament

(Case T-10/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 431/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nathalie Griesbeck (Ancy-sur-Moselle, France) (represented by: J.-L. Teheux, J.-M. Rikkers and G. Selnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 5 October 2020 which confirmed the decision of the Quaestors of 21 April 2020 rejecting the complaint directed against the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 18 October 2019 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 111 872,18 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance, (ii) that decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament, and (iii) the corresponding debit note of 24 October 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Nathalie Griesbeck to pay, in addition to her costs, those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin)

(Case T-233/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 128/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meta Cluster GmbH (Pyrbaum, Germany) (represented by: H. Baumann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2021 (Case R 2127/2020-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Clustermedizin as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-195/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 95/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Ye (APE TEES)

(Case T-281/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark APE TEES - Earlier national non-registered figurative trade marks representing an ape - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom)

(2022/C 198/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Kunze, 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: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nowhere Co. and Mr Ye.

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 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR)

(Case T-171/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FOR HONOR - Earlier EU word mark HONOR - 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 171/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ubisoft Entertainment (Carentoir, France) (represented by: J.B. Bourgeois, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 January 2021 (Case R 1297/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Huawei Technologies and Ubisoft Entertainment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ubisoft Entertainment to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Dorit-DFT v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT)

(Case T-208/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DORIT - Earlier national company names - Relative ground for refusal - No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 237/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Erwin Suter AG Maschinenfabrik Retus (Kölliken, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Brecht, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 127/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen and Erwin Suter Maschinenfabrik Retus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPALLI)

(Case T-445/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark COPALLI - Earlier national word mark COMPAL - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)

(2022/C 213/53)

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: T. Frydendahl and D. Gája, 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:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 (Case R 1581/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Copal Tree Brands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action

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

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of two crossed stripes placed on the side of a shoe)

(Case T-117/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 257/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: 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: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Guix Vilanova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2020 (Case R 2882/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Deichmann and Munich.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-109/21) (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 244/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (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 Kalev Mutondo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Haswani v Council

(Case T-479/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Res judicata - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair trial)

(2022/C 303/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action, the applicant seeks, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18), in so far as those acts maintain his name on the lists annexed thereto and, second, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the non-material damage he allegedly suffered following the adoption of the abovementioned acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr George Haswani to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-26/21 to T-28/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT - No genuine use of the marks - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Swatch AG (Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

By its three actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2020 (Cases R 2011/2018-4, R 2012/2018-4 and R 2013/2018-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-26/21 to T-28/21 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Apple Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.