ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/24

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v EUIPO — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA)

(Case T-217/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA - Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 022/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2015 (Case R 2391/2013-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Residencial Palladium and Fiesta Hotels & Resorts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/21

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2017 — Gómez Echevarría v EUIPO — M and M Direct (wax by Yuli’s)

(Case T-19/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark wax by Yuli’s - Earlier EU word mark MADWAX and earlier national figurative mark wax - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Abuse of rights - Costs of representation before EUIPO - Article 85(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 078/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Yuleidy Caridad Gómez Echevarría (Benalmádena, Spain) (represented by: E. López-Chicheri y Selma, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: M and M Direct Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2014 (Case R 951/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between M and M Direct and Ms Gómez Echevarría.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Yuleidy Caridad Gómez Echevarría to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/24

Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo)

(Case T-225/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU trade mark medialbo - Earlier EU word mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, Arizona, United States) (represented by: C. Bergmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Microchip Technology and Alexander Bopp.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. QuaMa Quality Management GmbH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/33

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union

(Case T-40/15) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Precision of the application - Prescription - Admissibility - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable time for adjudication - Material damage - Interest on the amount of the unpaid fine - Bank guarantee charges - Causal link))

(2017/C 112/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) (Torrelavega, Spain) and Armando Álvarez, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented: initially by M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruixó Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, and subsequently by M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented: initially by A. Placco, and subsequently by J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and P. Giusta, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, F. Castilla Contreras and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the length of the proceedings, before the General Court, in the context of the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, ASPLA v Commission (T-76/06, not published, EU:T:2011:672) and Álvarez v Commission (T-78/06, not published, EU:T:2011:673).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay damages of EUR 44 951,24 to Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) and damages of EUR 111 042,48 to Armando Álvarez, SA for the material damage suffered by each of those companies as a result of the failure to comply with the requirement to adjudicate within a reasonable period of time in the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, ASPLA v Commission (T-76/06, not published, EU:T:2011:672) and Álvarez v Commission (T-78/06, not published, EU:T:2011:673). Each of those heads of damages will be reassessed by adding on compensatory interest, to be calculated as from 27 January 2015 and until delivery of the present judgment, at the annual rate of inflation recorded, for the period at issue, by Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) in the Member State in which those companies are established;

2. Orders that each of the heads of damages referred to in paragraph 1 above be increased by default interest, to be calculated as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until full payment, at the rate set by the ECB for its principal refinancing operations, plus two percentage points;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders ASPLA and Armando Álvarez, on the one hand, and the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the other, to bear their own respective costs;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/8

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators)

(Case T-98/15) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Right to be heard - Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court - Saturation of the state of the art))

(2017/C 095/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and S. Di Natale, and subsequently by S. Di Natale and L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It and Tubes Radiatori.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl;

4. Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/31

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)

(Case T-388/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark JN-JOY - Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Assessment criteria - Composite mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 151/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua, C. Pirenne and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 1353/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Joy-Sportswear and J & Joy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders J & Joy SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/16

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Edison v EUIPO — Eolus Vind (e)

(Case T-276/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 129/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Martucci, F. Boscariol de Roberto and I. Gatto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eolus Vind AB (publ) (Hässleholm, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2015 (Case R 2358/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Edison and Eolus Vind.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Edison SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/16

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA)

(Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15) (1)

((Plant variety rights - Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 - Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO - Principle of impartiality))

(2017/C 202/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CVPO, intervener before the General Court: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Re:

In Case T-425/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 003/2010) concerning an application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; in Case T-426/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 002/2014) concerning an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; and, in Case T-428/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 007/2009) concerning an application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/23

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Renfe-Operadora v EUIPO (AVE)

(Case T-367/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark AVE - Partial invalidity - Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Application for restitutio in integrum - Duty of due care))

(2017/C 161/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Renfe-Operadora, Entidad Pública Empresarial (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and M.I. Hernández Sandoval, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 712/2014-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Renfe-Operadora, Entidad Pública Empresarial, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/21

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — City Train v EUIPO (CityTrain)

(Case T-699/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark CityTrain - Procedural time limit - Unforeseeable circumstances - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 256/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: City Train GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Adori, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2015 (Case R 843/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of figurative sign CityTrain as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders City Train GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/22

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2017 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

(Case T-637/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE - Earlier EU word mark VIÑA SOL - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to distinctive character - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 231/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Coral Gables, Florida, United States) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 356/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine.

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 3 September 2015 (Case R 356/2015-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP;

3. Orders Miguel Torres, SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/10

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO

(Case T-572/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GOURMET - Prior EU figurative mark ORIGINE GOURMET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2968/95))

(2017/C 357/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pierre-André Rouard (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Rouard and Aldi.

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 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

(1) OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/34

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Basic Net v EUIPO (Representation of three vertical stripes)

(Case T-612/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing three vertical stripes - Absolute ground for refusal - Not distinctive - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Basic Net SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

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 14 August 2015 (Case R 2845/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three vertical stripes as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Basic Net SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/22

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841)

(Case T-233/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark 1841 - Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Taking into account of additional evidence - Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 402/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2015 (Case R 805/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Armand Thiery and Cofra Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cofra Holding AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred, in connection with the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Armand Thiery SAS.

(1) OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/26

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zymara)

(Case T-214/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zymara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2015 (Case R 550/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/21

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2017 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)

(Case T-771/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark bittorrent - Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No account taken of evidence submitted before the Cancellation Division - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH, formerly Bittorrent Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany), (represented by: C. Hoppe, M. Terhaag and C. Schwarz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BitTorrent, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Clotten, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2015 (Case R 2275/2013-5) concerning revocation proceedings between BitTorrent and Bittorrent Marketing.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hochmann Marketing GmbH, formerly Bittorrent Marketing GmbH, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.