ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/16

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin)

(Case T-452/16) (1)

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

(2017/C 369/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 96/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Freundin as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/23

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)

(Case T-336/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO - Earlier EU word mark VERSACE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 392/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

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: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Francetti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Gianni Versace and Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal held that there had been genuine use of the earlier EU mark VERSACE for textile goods (not included in other classes) other than ‘household linen’ in class 24;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

4. Orders EUIPO to bear one half of its own costs;

5. Orders Gianni Versace SpA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/44

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)

(Case T-717/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a horse’s head - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 382/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Ekey, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 1195/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing the silhouette of a horse’s head as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Case T-202/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2017 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark coffee inn — Earlier national figurative mark coffee in — 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) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2017 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn)

(Case T-202/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark coffee inn — Earlier national figurative mark coffee in — 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) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: UAB Keturi kambariai (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Pumputienė, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: OÜ Coffee In (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: P. Lätt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 137/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Coffee In and Keturi kambariai.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders UAB Keturi kambariai to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/28

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)

(Case T-318/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SDC-444S - Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-444S - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence establishing the content of national law - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 402/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1573/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Moravia Consulting and Citizen Systems Europe

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/38

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)

(Case T-722/16) (1)

((EU trademark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark zerø - Earlier EU word mark ZERO - 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 005/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, then M. Fazzini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2371/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Steenfabrieken Vandersanden and Mapei.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Mapei SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/34

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Alpirsbacher Klosterbräu Glauner v EUIPO (Klosterstoff)

(Case T-844/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Klosterstoff - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Prior practice of EUIPO))

(2017/C 424/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alpirsbacher Klosterbräu Glauner GmbH & Co. KG (Alpirsbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert and S. Hofmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2016 (Case R 2064/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Klosterstoff as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alpirsbacher Klosterbräu Glauner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 38,6.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/36

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2017 — Bilde v Parliament

(Case T-633/16) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums wrongfully 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 022/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: G. Sauveur, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, R. Meyer and A. Jensen, 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 23 June 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 40 320 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, of the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament of 30 June and July 2016 and the debit note of 29 June 2016 relating thereto and application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation of the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered due, in particular, to that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Dominique Bilde to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/40

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIBION)

(Case T-802/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FEMIBION - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the mark - Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown))

(2018/C 005/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 (Case R 1608/2015-1), concerning revocation proceedings between Endoceutics and Merck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2016 (Case R 1608/2015-1), in so far as it maintained registration of the EU trade mark for ‘pharmaceutical preparations for immune system support, for menopause, for menstruation, for treatment and management of pregnancy, for the prevention, treatment and management of stress, for the prevention, treatment and management of stress [caused by] ill-balanced or deficient nutrition’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Merck KGaA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Endoceutics Inc. before the General Court and the costs incurred by Endoceutics before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders Endoceutics to bear half of its own costs;

5. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/29

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2017 — For Tune v EUIPO — Simplicity trade (opus AETERNATUM)

(Case T-815/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark opus AETERNATUM - Earlier EU word mark OPUS - 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 032/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: For Tune sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Popławska, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Simplicity trade GmbH (Oelde, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2016 (Case R 152/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Simplicity trade and For Tune.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders For Tune sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/28

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)

(Case T-622/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Alles wird gut - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 (Case R 212/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Alles wird gut as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/33

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METABOX)

(Case T-204/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark METABOX - Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier EU and national figurative marks meta4 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 072/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 307/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meta4 Spain and Sun Media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/17

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB

(Case T-482/16 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - EIB Staff - Time limit for bringing an action - Reasonable period of time - Pension - 2008 Reform - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Liability - Non-material damage))

(2018/C 042/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 33 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: C. Cortese and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Gilliams, and subsequently by T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli and lastly by T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the EIB, contained in the applicants’ payslips for the month of February 2010, to increase their pension contribution rates and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay a symbolic EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the other staff members of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs of these proceedings.

3. Orders the EIB to pay the costs incurred in Cases F-34/10, T-234/11 P and T-234/11 P RENV–RX.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-34/10).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/37

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ v Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)

(Case T-795/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CRABS - Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ - 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 104/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2507/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Moscow Confectionary Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/22

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)

(Case T-808/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE - Earlier EU word mark JOY - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Emboga, SA (Petrel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 (Case R 235/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jean Patou Worldwide and Emboga.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/42

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-85/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 3106/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas and Shoe Branding Europe.

Operative part of the order

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.