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

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Zegers v Commission

(Case T-663/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Retirement pension - Transfer of national pension rights - Condition requiring acquisition before entry into the service of the European Union - Recognition by the national authority of a period after entry into the service of the European Union)

(2022/C 463/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tanja Zegers (Hoeilaart, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 3 December 2020, by which the Commission rejected her request for transfer to the European Union of pension rights she had acquired in the Netherlands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Société Elmar Wolf v EUIPO — Fuxtec (Representation of the head of an animal)

(Case T-596/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a head - Earlier national figurative mark representing the head of a canine - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing the head of a canine - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)

(2023/C 15/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by N. Boespflug, 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: Fuxtec GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by M. Hammer and C. Koller, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 2834/2019-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Société Elmar Wolf, since it has been unsuccessful, to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)

(Case T-718/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark MAESELLE - Earlier EU figurative mark MARCELLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 482/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Kaczorowska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Groupe Marcelle Inc. (Lachine, Quebec, Canada)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 September 2021 (Case R 671/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Katarzyna Kaczorowska to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert)

(Case T-487/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert - Tactile position mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Scope of the law - Court acting of its own motion - Examination of distinctive character by the Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Sign not capable of constituting an EU mark - Absence of a precise and self-contained graphic representation of the tactile impression produced by the sign - Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 35/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Neoperl AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Kaufmann, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2019-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Accessory for wireless remote control)

(Case T-612/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an accessory for a wireless remote control - Ground for invalidity - Features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Facts or evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2023/C 35/62)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Chylińska and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1072/2020-3).

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 14 July 2022 (Case R 1072/2020-3);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — General Wire Spring v EUIPO (GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS)

(Case T-151/22) (1)

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

(2023/C 35/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: General Wire Spring Co. (McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: E. Carrillo, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 January 2022 (Case R 1452/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders General Wire Spring Co. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/38

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2009 — Bouma and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-533/93) (1)

2009/C 90/58

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed in part from the register.

(1) OJ C 334, 9.12.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/52

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R)

(Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Admissibility)

(2008/C 209/92)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità (Venice, Italy); Codess Sociale Cooperativa sociale Soc. Coop. and Others. (Venice, Italy) (represented by: F.G. Gaiulli and I. Gianniotti, lawyers); and Metropolitan Srl e Comitato 'Venezia Vuole Vivere' (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A Bianchini. lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and V. Di Bucci, agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1. The cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R, while themselves all remaining joined, are separated from the other cases referred to in the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008.

2. The applications for interim measures are rejected.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/22

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca and Others v Commission

(Case T-260/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 38/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. rl (Venice, Italy); Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia, Italy); Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. rl (Venice); Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. rl (Venice); Murazzo — Piccola Società Cooperativa rl (Chioggia); RAM — Società Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi (Chioggia); Confcooperative — Unione Provinciale di Venezia (Mestre, Italy); and Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ (Marghera, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervening party in support of the applicants: The Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

2. The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. rl, Murazzo — Piccola Società Cooperativa rl, RAM — Società Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi, Confcooperative — Unione Provinciale di Venezia et Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 327/41

Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2008 — Casinò municipale di Venezia v Commission

(Case T-221/00) (1)

(2008/C 327/72)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/33

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2008 — Regione Siciliana v Commission

(Joined Cases T-392/03, T-408/03, T-414/03 and T-435/03) (1)

(Action for annulment - ERDF - Withdrawal of financial aid - Recovery of sums already paid - Claims for payment of default interest - Compensation - Regional or local entity - No direct concern - Admissibility)

(2008/C 313/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Regione Siciliana (Italy) (represented by: G. Aiello and A. Cingolo, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March, L. Flynn and G. Wilms, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Case T-392/03: application to annul the Commission's letter of 6 October 2003, as far as it concerns the procedure for recovery of sums paid by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in respect of the infrastructure project ‘Dam across the Gibbesi’ and the earlier and derivative acts; Case T-408/03: application for annulment of of the letter of 6 October 2003 as far as it concerns the procedure for the recovery of sums paid by the ERDF for the infrastructure projects ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Plain of Catania’ and the earlier and derivative acts, including the Commission's letter of 13 August 2003 and 14 August 2003; Case T-414/03: application for annulment of the letter of 6 October 2003 in so far as it concerns the procedure for the recovery of sums paid by the ERDF of the infrastructure project ‘Messine-Palermo Motorway’ and the earlier and derivative acts, including Commission debit note No 3240406591 of 25 September 2002, and in Case T-435/03: application to annul the Commission's letter of 24 October 2003 relating to the offsetting of Commission credits and debt connected to the ERDF assistance ‘Porto Empedocle’, ‘Dam across the Gibbesi’, ‘Messine-Palermo’, ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Plain of Catania’ together with the earlier and derivative acts.

Operative part of the order

1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Regione Siciliana is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/35

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Piccinni-Leopardi v Commission

(Case T-128/04) (1)

(2008/C 197/64)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/39

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 January 2008 — Commission v Lior and Others

(Case T-245/04) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Action against a European Economic Interest Grouping and its members and former members - Partial jurisdiction)

(2008/C 64/63)

Languages of the case: French and Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: first H. Støvlbæk, Agent, and M. Bra, lawyer, then H. Støvlbæk and M. Konstantinidis, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendants: Lior GEIE (Brussels, Belgium); Lior International NV (Hoeilaart, Belgium); Deira SA (Hoeilaart); Eutec Srl (Forli, Italy); Mindshare BVBA (Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium); Società politecnica italiana ricerche e progetti Srl (Città di Castello, Italy); RPA Spa (Perugia, Italy); Carmen eV (Straubing, Germany); (represented by: V. Marien, lawyer); University College Dublin — Energy Research Group (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Herbert and L. Demeyere, lawyers); Beneport SA (Brussels); Europe Information Service SA (Brussels); Managium SPRL (Brussels) (represented by: J.-P. Brusseleers, lawyer); and Aris Hellas EPE (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: K. Sakellariadis, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 238 EC seeking an order against all the defendants jointly to repay the amounts paid by the Community in accordance with six contracts concluded in the framework of the Thermie programme and one contract concluded in the framework of the Altener II programme.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it relates to Deira SA, Eutec Srl, Mindshare BVBA, Società politecnica italiana recherche e progetti Srl, RPA Spa, Carmen eV, University College Dublin — Energy Research Group, Beneport SA, Europe Information Service SA, Managium SPRL and Aris Hellas EPE.

2. The Commission shall bear its own costs with regard to the action brought against Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin — Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service, Managium and Aris Hellas, and pay the costs of Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin — Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service and Managium.

3. Aris Hellas shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 6.9.2003 (formerly Case C-280/03).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 193/21

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-258/04) (1)

(Action for annulment - Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Time-limit for bringing action - Point from which time starts to run - Lateness — Inadmissibility)

2009/C 193/33

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: J. Pietras and E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, initially, then T. Nowakowski and finally M. Dowgielewicz, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, initially, then T. van Rijn, L. Visaggio and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, Agent)

Re:

Annulment of Articles 5, 6(1) to (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8)

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

3. The Republic of Cyprus is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 251, of 9.10.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/61

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-345/04) (1)

(2008/C 301/102)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/20

Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission

(Case T-94/05 RENV II) (1)

(State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Referral back to the General Court after setting aside - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: P. Spyropoulos, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 2004 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint relating to alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the ‘Mont Parnes Casino’ public contract.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Athinaïki Techniki AE.

3. Athinaïki Techniki shall bear half of its own costs.

4. Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/62

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-402/05) (1)

(2008/C 301/109)

Language of the case: Italy

The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/22

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Republic of Poland v Commission

(Case T-41/06) (1)

(2008/C 158/37)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/28

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)

(Case T-327/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PNEUMO UPDATE - Earlier national word mark Pneumo - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly wholly unfounded in law)

(2008/C 92/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Altana Pharma AG (Constance, Germany) (represented by: H. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Avensa AG (Zoug, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2006 (Case R 668/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Avensa AG and Altana Pharma AG.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly wholly unfounded in law.

2. Altana Pharma AG is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 31.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/40

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Grandel (Epican Forte)

(Case T-373/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2008/C 285/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Hodapp, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1069/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

2. Matthias Rath shall bear his own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.