ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Teva UK and Others v Commission

(Case T-679/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Perindopril market, medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of impartiality - Consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions - Patent dispute settlement and exclusive purchasing agreement - Potential competition - Restriction of competition by object - Balance between competition law and patent law - Conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU - Fines))

(2019/C 82/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Teva UK Ltd (West Yorkshire, United Kingdom), Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht, Netherlands), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by D Tayar and A. Richard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi and B. Mongin, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Generic medicines Association AISBL (EGA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S.-P. Brankin, Solicitor, and E. Wijckmans, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Teva UK Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the European Generic medicines Association AISBL (EGA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/17

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Olympus Medical Systems v OHIM (3D)

(Case T-79/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark 3D - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 059/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Olympus Medical Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and C. Opatz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Doherty and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 (Case R 1708/2014-2) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign 3D as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Olympus Medical Systems Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/20

Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Tronios Group International v EUIPO — Sky (SkyTec)

(Case T-77/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SkyTec - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 200/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Tronios Group International BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen and H. Klingenberg, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented initially by J. Barry, Solicitor, and subsequently by M. Schut and A. Meijboom, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2014 (Case R 1681/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Tronios Group International BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tronios Group International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Sky plc to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/38

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO)

(Case T-33/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BIMBO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 (Case R 251/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BIMBO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/30

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Bimbo v EUIPO (THE SNACK COMPANY)

(Case T-331/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union figurative mark THE SNACK COMPANY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2015 (Case R 954/2014 2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign THE SNACK COMPANY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bimbo, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/17

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)

(Case T-32/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2014 (Case R 647/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/20

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov

(Case T-26/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Appointment - Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Composition of the pre-selection board - Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Impartiality))

(2016/C 314/28)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers) (applicant at first instance); and European Medicines Agency (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents) (defendant at first instance)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments;

2. Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011, by which it proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/32

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Thun 1794 v EUIPO — Adekor (Decorative graphical symbols)

(Case T-420/15) (1)

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing decorative graphical symbols - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Disclosure of earlier design - Lack of novelty - Articles 5, 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2016/C 305/44)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Thun 1794 a.s. (Nová Role, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Steidl, 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: Adekor s.r.o. (Loket, Czech Republic) (represented by: V. Dohnalová, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 1465/2014-3) relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Thun 1794 and Adekor.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Thun 1794 a.s. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/32

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission

(Case T-18/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Rights of the defence - Overriding public interest))

(2016/C 392/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, in so far as it refused access to the first three sentences of the third paragraph of Document No 6;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/36

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Preferisco Foods v EUIPO — Piccardo & Savore’ (PREFERISCO)

(Case T-371/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PREFERISCO - Earlier EU word mark I PREFERITI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 392/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Preferisco Foods Ltd (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Sidat Humphreys and J.-F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Piccardo & Savore’ Srl (Chiusavecchia, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2015 (Case R 2598/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Piccardo & Savore’ and Preferisco Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Preferisco Foods Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/39

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Bach Flower Remedies v EUIPO — Durapharma (RESCUE)

(Case T-337/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark RESCUE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Simandlova and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 2551/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Durapharma and Bach Flower Remedies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bach Flower Remedies Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/14

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Łabowicz v EUIPO — Pure Fishing (NANO)

(Case T-237/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark NANO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 410/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pure Fishing, Inc. (Spirit Lake, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2426/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pure Fishing and Mr Łabowicz

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Edward Łabowicz to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/16

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

(Case T-124/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark UNICORN - Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN and earlier national figurative mark representing a unicorn’s head - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 462/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2015 (Case R 149/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Unicorn and Mercilink Equipment Leasing.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Unicorn a.s. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/37

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission

(Case T-70/15) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU - Setting of fees by the Split Port Authority for port services in respect of domestic traffic at maximum levels - Rejection of a complaint - Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - No EU interest))

(2016/C 419/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 9236 final of 28 November 2014, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning infringements of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by the Split Port Authority or of Articles 102 and 106 TFEU committed by the Republic of Croatia or the Split Port Authority (Case AT.40199 — Port of Split).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Trajektna luka Split d.d. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/28

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Azur Space Solar Power GmbH v EUIPO (Representation of white lines and bricks on a black background)

(Case T-578/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 022/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus and S. Stöcker, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2780/2014-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Azur Space Solar Power GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/35

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Vince v EUIPO (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)

(Case T-315/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 006/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dale Vince (Stroud, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Longstaff, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 1442/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELECTRIC HIGHWAY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Dale Vince to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/31

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Cantina Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-391/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALDIANO - Earlier EU word mark ALDI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 038/42)

Language of the case: English

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. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Cantina Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2015 (Case R 1612/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi and Cantina Tollo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.