ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/24

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)

(Case T-132/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark VENMO - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 195/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PayPal, Inc. (San José, California, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer, and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

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: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Hill, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2974/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between PayPal and Hub Culture.

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 12 January 2016 (Case R 2974/2014-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PayPal, Inc.;

3. Orders Hub Culture Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/26

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)

(Case T-327/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ANTICO CASALE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 256/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fratelli Polli, SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bacchini, M. Mazzitelli and E. Rondinelli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2016 (Case R 1337/2015-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Aldi Einkauf and Fratelli Polli.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/46

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — AWG v EUIPO — Takko (Southern Territory 23o48’25’’S)

(Case T-6/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark Southern Territory 23o48’25’’S - Earlier EU word mark SOUTHERN - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 239/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: AWG Allgemeine Warenvertriebs GmbH (Köngen, Germany) (represented by: T. Sambuc, lawyer)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2015 (Case R 735/2015-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Takko Holding and AWG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders AWG Allgemeine Warenvertriebs GmbH to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/37

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-27/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Error of law - Article 3(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Principle of legality - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 277/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and G. Brown, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee and M. Gray, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 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) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), by which the Commission, in particular, applied to the period of 2008 to 2012 a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 849 194,86 following the exclusion of certain expenditure relating to the operational programmes of fruit and vegetable producer organisations of the United Kingdom for the years 2008 and 2009 as a result of weaknesses in the system of key controls of those programmes.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/39

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (A pair of curved strips positioned on the side of a tyre)

(Case T-81/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a pair of curved strips on the side of a tyre - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 277/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 (Case R 1019/2015-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a pair of curved strips on the side of a tyre as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pirelli Tyre SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/30

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-287/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Export refunds - No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State - Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies - Proportionality))

(2017/C 293/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: initially J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, then M. Jacobs, L. Van den Broeck and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 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) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/41

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Sata v EUIPO (4600)

(Case T-214/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Sign composed exclusively of numerals - Application for an EU word mark 4600 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, 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 24 February 2016 (Case R 1942/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign 4600 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/32

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-261/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Direct support scheme for farmers - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Milk quota system - Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 - Replacement of on-the-spot checks of agricultural holdings by administrative checks))

(2017/C 374/48)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Lewis, G. Braga da Cruz and J. Guillem Carrau, then A. Lewis and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 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) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), including that carried out by the Portuguese Republic in the context of ‘[o]ther Direct Aid — [a]rticle 68 — 72 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009’ for the financial years 2011 to 2013 of a total amount of EUR 385 762,22.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/12

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)

(Case T-276/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Boswelan - Declaration of revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the trade mark - No proper reasons for non-use))

(2017/C 369/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hecht-Pharma GmbH (Hollnseth, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and J. Sachs, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 February 2016 (Case R 2837/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Hecht-Pharma and Viridis Pharmaceutical.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/29

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo v EUIPO — Zanini Porte (silente PORTE & PORTE)

(Case T-386/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark silente PORTE & PORTE - Genuine use - Place of use - Nature of use - Use by third parties - Declaration of revocation - Right of defence - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 402/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo Snc (Caerano di San Marco, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Di Natale and L. Rampini, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zanini Porte SpA (Bosco Chiesanuova, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 240/2015-1) concerning revocation proceedings between Zanini Porte and Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/45

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Ruhland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star)

(Case T-779/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star - Earlier Community design - Ground of invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 382/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lothar Rühland (Wendeburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Hanne, and subsequently by: M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 8 seasons design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2016 (Case R 878/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between 8 seasons design and Mr Rühland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Lothar Rühland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case T-810/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Barmenia Krankenversicherung v EUIPO (Mediline) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the EU word mark Mediline — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Barmenia Krankenversicherung v EUIPO (Mediline)

(Case T-810/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for registration of the EU word mark Mediline — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Barmenia Krankenversicherung AG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2016 (Case R 2437/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Mediline as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Barmenia Krankenversicherung AG to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/27

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)

(Case T-317/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SDC-888TII RU - Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-888TII RU - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence establishing the content of national law - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 402/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat, J. Lipinsky, J. Hagenberg, T. Hollerbach and C. Nitschke, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1566/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Moravia Consulting and Citizen Systems Europe

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/32

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Pempe v EUIPO — Marshall Amplification (THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS)

(Case T-271/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS - Earlier EU word and figurative marks MARSHALL and Marshall AMPLIFICATION - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Admissibility of the request for proof of the earlier marks’ genuine use - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 005/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yusuf Pempe (Créteil, France) (represented by: A. Vivès-Albertini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marshall Amplification plc (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 (Case R 376/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marshall Amplification and Mr Pempe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Yusuf Pempe to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.07.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/31

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)

(Case T-777/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden - Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL - 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)))

(2017/C 437/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden) (represented by: J. Kroher, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 181/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/35

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017 — FTI Touristik v EUIPO — Prantner and Giersch (FI)

(Case T-475/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FI - Prior EU figurative mark fly.de - 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)))

(2018/C 022/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Harald Prantner (Hamburg, Germany) and Daniel Giersch (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Eble and Y.-A. Wolff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 (Case R 480/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between FTI Touristik and Messrs Prantner and Giersch.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/14

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)

(Case T-465/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark cotecnica OPTIMA - Earlier EU figurative mark visán Optima PREMIUM PETFOOD - 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]))

(2018/C 013/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cotécnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, J. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL (Arganda, Spain) (represented by: P. Alesci Naranjo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 (Case R 229/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Visán Industrias Zootécnicas and Cotécnica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cotécnica, SCCL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.