ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/27

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — De Nicola v Council and Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-42/16) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Civil service - EIB staff - Guidelines concerning laser treatment - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable time - Failure to comply with the rules governing the right to a fair hearing - Material damage - Non-material damage - Claims made by the applicant in the context of a case pending before the Civil Service Tribunal - Partial referral of the case to the General Court))

(2017/C 437/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially by L. Isola and G. Isola, and subsequently by G. Ferabecoli, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and M. Veiga, acting as Agents) and Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially by J. Inghelram, P. Giusta and L. Tonini Alabiso, and subsequently by J. Inghelram, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of, first, the adoption by the EU legislature of certain guidelines concerning laser treatment, second, the allegedly excessive duration of the proceedings before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court in relation to his request for reimbursement of the medical fees connected with laser treatment, third, the supposedly unfair nature of those proceedings and, fourth, the numerous actions which he has been compelled to bring by the Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings before both the General Court of the European Union and the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-82/15).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/34

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage)

(Case T-239/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark perlage - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 022/46)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Zdroje sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 (Case R 1129/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of word sign perlage as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Polskie Zdroje sp. z o.o. sp.k. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/16

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — PF v Commission

(Case T-617/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion exercise - Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Duty to provide a statement of reasons - Consideration of comparative merits - Use of languages in the context of the duties performed by administrators assigned to linguistic duties and by administrators assigned to non-linguistic duties - Legitimate absences - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 013/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PF (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 8 in the 2015 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PF to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-47/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/22

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Consejo Regulador ‘Torta del Casar’ v EUIPO — Consejo Regulador ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA)

(Case T-828/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA - Protection of the designation of origin ‘Torta del Casar’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 2(2), Article 3(1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 042/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen ‘Torta del Casar’ (Casar de Cáceres, Spain) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Queso de La Serena’ (Castuera, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2573/2014–4), concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen ‘Torta del Casar’ and Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Queso de La Serena’.

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 26 September 2016 (Case R 2573/2014–4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen ‘Torta del Casar’.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/27

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)

(Case T-332/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark 360o - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 (Case R 2288/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign 360o as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/20

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — Wenger v EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR)

(Case T-869/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SWISSGEAR - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 083/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wenger SA (Delémont, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Ikas and A. Sulovsky, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Swissgear Sàrl (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Hacke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 (Case R 2098/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Swissgear and Wenger.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wenger SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Swissgear Sàrl.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/26

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — bet365 Group Ltd v EUIPO — Hansen (BET 365)

(Case T-304/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BET 365 - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Proof - Use of the mark for a number of purposes - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 052/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: bet365 Group Ltd (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Malynicz QC, and by R. Black and J. Bickle, Solicitors)

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: Robert Hansen (Munich, Germany) (represented by M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 3243/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Hansen and bet365 Group.

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 21 March 2016 (Case R 3243/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the services in Class 41 listed in the registration of the EU trade mark BET 365;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/39

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Access Info Europe v European Commission

(Case T-852/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - EU-Turkey statements of 8 and 18 March 2016 - Implementation by the European Union or by the Member States of the measures concerned - Documents drawn up or received by the legal service of an institution - Legal advice - Analyses of the legality of the measures provided for in connection with the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice))

(2018/C 104/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6030 final of 19 September 2016 confirming the refusal to grant the applicant access to documents from the Commission’s Legal Service which purportedly concern the legality of the measures adopted by the European Union and its Member States in implementing the actions set out in the statement of the Heads of State or Government of the European Union of 18 March 2016, adopted following their meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister on the same day.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Access Info Europe to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/18

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-91/16) (1)

((ESF - Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Calculation by extrapolation - Proportionality - Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 094/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 9413 of 17 December 2015 concerning the reduction of the European Social Fund (ESF) [contribution] for the operational programme for the Region of Sicily, which forms part of the Community support framework for structural interventions in the Italian regions covered by objective No 1 (CCI 1999IT 161PO011).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/31

Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2018 — Kiosked v EUIPO — VRT (K)

(Case T-824/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark K - Earlier Benelux figurative mark K - 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 152/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kiosked Oy Ab (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, 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, intervener before the General Court: De Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P.-Y. Thoumsin and E. Van Melkebeke, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 (Case R 279/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between VRT and Kiosked.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kiosked Oy Ab to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by De Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT).

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/44

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-624/16) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Power of the Secretary-General - Electa una via - Rights of the defence - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Political rights - Equal treatment - Misuse of power - Independence of the Members - Error of fact - Proportionality))

(2018/C 142/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: N. Fakiroff, then F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 1 July 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 275 984,23 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 5 July 2016 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case T-831/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM)

(Case T-831/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leedsworld, Inc. (New Kensington, Pennsylvania, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2016 (Case R 1235/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom and Leedsworld.

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 7 September 2016 (Case R 1235/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom and Leedsworld, Inc;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/47

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Šroubárna Ždánice v Council

(Case T-442/16) (1)

((Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China or consigned from Malaysia - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 - Jurisdiction of the national court - Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court))

(2018/C 161/52)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. (Kyjov, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Osladil, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for repayment of the anti-dumping duties, with interest, that the applicant claims to have wrongfully paid to the customs authorities of the Czech Republic following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation No 91/2007 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation No 91/2009 (OJ 2012 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;

2. Orders Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Case T-676/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)

(Case T-676/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 280/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign mycard2go as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wirecard AG to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Case T-662/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Styriagra — Earlier EU word mark VIAGRA — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)

(Case T-662/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Styriagra — Earlier EU word mark VIAGRA — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Gall Pharma GmbH (Judenburg, Austria) (represented initially by: D. Reichelt and L. Figura, and subsequently by T. Schafft, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 (Case R 724/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer and Gall Pharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gall Pharma GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.