ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-264/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)

(Case T-264/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)’

Parties

Applicant: Uponor Innovation AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar, 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 General Court: Swep International AB (Landskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Swep International and Uponor Innovation.

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 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the General Court;

3. Orders Swep International AB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

( 1 ) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case T-301/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 2000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000)

(Case T-301/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 2000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, 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: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 651/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools and Sata.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-98/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — RT v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Sick leave — Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations — Internal rules on medical examinations in connection with absence from work on medical grounds and periodic medical examinations of persons claiming the invalidity allowance — Medical certificate — No doctor’s stamp or signature — Long-distance medical consultation via the internet — Refusal to accept)

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — RT v Parliament

(Case T-98/17) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Officials — Sick leave — Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations — Internal rules on medical examinations in connection with absence from work on medical grounds and periodic medical examinations of persons claiming the invalidity allowance — Medical certificate — No doctor’s stamp or signature — Long-distance medical consultation via the internet — Refusal to accept)’

Parties

Applicant: RT (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 30 June 2016 rejecting a document submitted by the applicant on 27 June 2016 as inadmissible as a medical certificate prescribing sick leave

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 30 June 2016 rejecting the document submitted by RT on 27 June 2016 as inadmissible as a medical certificate prescribing sick leave;

2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Case T-89/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NOVUS — Earlier EU word and figurative marks NOVUS and novus — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)

(Case T-89/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NOVUS — Earlier EU word and figurative marks NOVUS and novus — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)’

Parties

Applicant: Erwin Müller GmbH (Lingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Novus Tablet Technology Finland Oy (Turku, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2016 (Case R 2413/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Erwin Müller and Novus Tablet Technology Finland.

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 28 November 2016 (Case R 2413/2015-4) in so far as it concerns the ‘special holders for mobile phones’ referred to in the trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Erwin Müller GmbH and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)

(Case T-94/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark tigha - Earlier EU word mark TAIGA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark))

(2018/C 392/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ACTC GmbH (Erkrath, Germany) (represented by V. Hoene, D. Eickemeier and S. Gantenbrink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Kusturovic, D. Walicka and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Taiga AB (Varberg, Sweden) (represented by C. Eckhartt and K. Thanbichler-Brandl, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 (Case R 693/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Taiga and ACTC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — SQ v EIB

(Case T-377/17) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative enquiry - Concept of ‘psychological harassment’ - Requirement that the conduct complained of must be repetitive in order to constitute ‘psychological harassment’ - Refusal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person responsible for that conduct - Duty of confidentiality in relation to an ongoing administrative enquiry and, subsequently, to the decision terminating the procedure finding that there had been psychological harassment))

(2018/C 341/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SQ (represented by: N. Cambonie and P. Walter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, and J. Currall, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 50a(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 41 of the EIB Staff Regulations seeking, first, the partial annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB of 20 March 2017 and, second, compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of psychological harassment by her superior and the EIB’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls in part the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 20 March 2017, in so far as it applies an incorrect definition of the concept of ‘psychological harassment’, does not provide for immediate disciplinary action in the event of a proven case of psychological harassment within the EIB, and imposes a duty of confidentiality on the addressee of that decision, contrary to the purposes of an investigation procedure concerning an alleged case of psychological harassment;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the claims for annulment;

3. Orders the EIB to pay to SQ, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, an amount of EUR 10 000;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the claims for compensation;

5. Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by SQ;

6. Orders SQ to bear half of her own costs.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882)

(Case T-374/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882 - Earlier national word marks CUERVO Y SOBRINO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by S. Ferrandis González and V. Balaguer Fuentes, and subsequently by S. Ferrandis González, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: A. Salgado Nespereira, SA (Ourense, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1141/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between A. Salgado Nespereira and Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the cross-claim;

3. Orders Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

4. Orders A. Salgado Nespereira, SA to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER)

(Case T-238/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark GUGLER - Earlier national company name Gugler France - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 408/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially P. Sipos, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gugler France (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2017 (Case R 1008/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gugler France and Mr Gugler.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 January 2017 (Case R 1008/2016-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler;

3. Orders Gugler France to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)

(Case T-697/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark COOKING CHEF GOURMET - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by M. Arnott and A. Nicholls, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2017 (Case R 231/2017-1) concerning the application for registration of the word sign COOKING CHEF GOURMET as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders De Longhi Benelux to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Constantinescu v Parliament

(Case T-17/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Education - Admission to childcare facilities - Decision to enrol a child at childcare facilities different from those at which the child was previously enrolled - Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility - Liability)

(2018/C 427/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL) enrolling the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg II — Bertrange/Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s enrolment at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg I — Kirchberg, as well as the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-27/17) (1)

((Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Relation with parliamentary duties - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectation - Procedure for waiving immunity - Rights of the defence - Abuse of power - Non-contractual liability))

(2018/C 436/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: initially J.-P. Le Moigne, then M. Ceccaldi, and finally F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: Parliament (represented by: initially M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, then S. Alonso de León, N. Gorlitz and S. Syer, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision P8_TA(2016)9429 of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 waiving the applicant’s immunity; and, secondly, action brought under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm which the applicant claimed to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jean-François Jalkh to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Linak v EUIPO -ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Electrically operated lifting column)

(Case T-367/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electrically operated lifting column - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Informed user - No different overall impression - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2018/C 436/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Linak A/S (Nordborg, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and A. Folliard-Monguiral, and subsequently by G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 (Case R 1411/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Linak and ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Linak A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil)

(Case T-831/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Flexagil - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph,(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))

(2019/C 25/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DRH Licensing & Managing AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2017 (Case R 2043/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between DRH Licensing & Managing and Merck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DRH Licensing & Managing AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Troszczynski v Parliament

(Case T-550/17) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to lift parliamentary immunity - Activity unconnected to the functions of a Member - Procedure for lifting immunity - Non-contractual liability - Damage - Causal link)

(2019/C 4/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, and subsequently S. Alonso de León, N. Görlitz and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 14 June 2017 by which the Parliament lifted the applicant’s immunity and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mylène Troszczynski to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)

(Case T-826/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FYYO - Earlier EU word mark FIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and H. Lindner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fio Systems AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Hänsel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 2337/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fio Systems and TeamBank Nürnberg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.