ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Reyes v Council

(Case T-552/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as those acts concern Mr Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes;

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

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Qualcomm v Commission (Qualcomm — exclusivity payments)

(Case T-235/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - LTE chipsets market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Exclusivity payments - Rights of the defence - Article 19 and Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Foreclosure effects)

(2022/C 294/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qualcomm Inc. (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, M. Davilla and M. English, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Qualcomm Inc., seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 240 final of 24 January 2018 relating to proceedings under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the [EEA Agreement] (Case AT.40220 — Qualcomm (Exclusivity payments)), by which the European Commission found that Qualcomm had abused its dominant position from 25 February 2011 to 16 September 2016 (‘the period concerned’) and imposed on it a fine of EUR 997 439 000 (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside Commission Decision C(2018) 240 final of 24 January 2018 relating to proceedings under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the [EEA Agreement] (Case AT.40220 — Qualcomm (Exclusivity payments));

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — ZU v Commission

(Case T-671/18 and T-140/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Transfer in the interests of the service - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Article 25 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence and the right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration and duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Refusal of the request - 2017 appraisal exercise - Appraisal report - 2018 promotion exercise - Proposed non-promotion - Liability)

(2021/C 502/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, D. Milanowska and L. Vernier, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, in Case T 671/18, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2018 to transfer the applicant to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Brussels (Belgium), of the letter of the Commission of 29 October 2018 by which it provisionally confirmed to the applicant that he would be transferred to OLAF as of 1 December 2018 and communicated to him practical information concerning his return to Brussels and of the decision rejecting the complaint lodged against those two decisions and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, inter alia, of those decisions and, in Case T 140/19, for annulment of the applicant’s 2017 appraisal report, of the proposal for his non-promotion for 2018, of the rejection of his request for assistance made on 26 January 2018 and of the decisions rejecting the complaints brought against those three decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases T-671/18 and T-140/19;

2. Orders ZU to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those proceedings for interim measures in Case T-671/18 R.

(1) OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Bilde v Parliament

(Case T-248/19) (1)

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Manifest error of assessment - Electa una via - Principle of ne bis in idem - Misuse of powers)

(2020/C 95/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of decision P8_TA(2019)0137 of the Parliament of 12 March 2019 to withdraw the applicant’s parliamentary immunity.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Dominique Bilde to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Amazon Technologies v EUIPO (ring)

(Case T-270/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ring - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 61/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amazon Technologies, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 2211/2018-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ring

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Amazon Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese)

(Case T-572/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a twisted cheese - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 108/2019-4) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a twisted cheese as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Dekoback v EUIPO — DecoPac (DECOPAC)

(Case T-80/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark DECOPAC - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard)

(2020/C 137/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dekoback GmbH (Helmstadt-Bargen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Moers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: DecoPac, Inc. (Anoka, Minnesota, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 (Case R 1795/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Dekoback and DecoPac.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dekoback GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Cognac Ferrand v EUIPO (Shape of braiding on a bottle)

(Case T-172/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of braiding on a bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cognac Ferrand (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 (Case R 1640/2018-2) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of braiding on a bottle as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cognac Ferrand to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense)

(Case T-109/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense - Earlier EU word mark MultiSense - 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))

(2020/C 209/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1178/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan)

(Case T-379/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 262/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 (Case R 1424/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Serviceplan as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — FF&GB v EUIPO (ONE-OFF)

(Case T-707/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ONE-OFF - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 247/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: FF&GB Srl (Mantua, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2019 (Case R 239/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ONE-OFF as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FF&GB Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Euroapotheca v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)

(Case T-686/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark GNC LIVE WELL - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2020/C 339/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Euroapotheca UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and E. Saukalas, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and intervener before the General Court: General Nutrition Investment Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Rijsdijk, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 (Case R 2189/2018-5) concerning revocation proceedings between Euroapotheca and General Nutrition Investment Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Euroapotheca UAB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Dinamo v EUIPO (Favorit)

(Case T-729/19) (1)

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

(2020/C 329/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dinamo GmbH (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 (Case R 985/2019-2) relating to the application for registration of the word sign Favorit as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dinamo GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate v Commission

(Case T-549/19) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Trecondi-treosulfan - Decision to remove a medicinal product from the Register of Orphan Medicinal Products - Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Concept of ‘satisfactory method’ - Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation No 141/2000 - Error of law)

(2020/C 390/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate mbH (Wedel, Germany) (represented by: P. von Czettritz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 4858 final of 20 June 2019 granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Trecondi-treosulfan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 5 of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 4858 (final) of 20 June 2019 granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘Trecondi-treosulfan’;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
1.

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is annulled to the extent that it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a flat rate correction of 2 % on Decoupled Direct Aids; in an amount of EUR 12 342 563.07 for the 2016 financial year and EUR 12 060 283.13 for the 2017 financial year.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Eugène Perma France v EUIPO — SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE)

(Case T-602/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NATURANOVE - Earlier EU word mark NATURALIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 423/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SPI Investments Group, SL (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 (Case R 2161/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between SPI Investments Group and Eugène Perma France.

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 1 July 2019 (Case R 2161/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between SPI Investments Group, SL and Eugène Perma France;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller)

(Case T-626/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SOS Loch- und Rissfüller - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 399/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Case R 278/2019-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SOS Loch- und Rissfüller as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Daw SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (Sadia)

(Case T-309/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Sadia - Earlier national word mark SAIDA - 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) - Principle of sound administration - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 28/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand-Lieu, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance and M. Aïtelli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1834/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tipiak and BRF Singapore Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tipiak;

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-857/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Court of Justice of the European Union - Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions - Article 266 TFEU - Decision adopted to give effect to a judgment of the General Court - Measures necessary to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment - Presumption of non-existence or non-possession of documents - Plausible explanations making it possible to determine the reasons for the non-existence or non-possession of documents - Obligation to state reasons - Retention of documentation - Principle of good administration)

(2021/C 9/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 October 2019 concerning a measure giving effect to the judgment of 20 September 2019, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-433/17, EU:T:2019:632).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Franklin Dehousse to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.