ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-404/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a packet of biscuits — Declaration of revocation — Extent of use — No alteration of distinctive character)

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits)

(Case T-404/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a packet of biscuits — Declaration of revocation — Extent of use — No alteration of distinctive character)’

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rebling, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 1613/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón.

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 19 May 2016 (Case R 1613/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón;

2. Orders EUIPO and O2 Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/39

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Nanogate v EUIPO (metals)

(Case T-767/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark metals - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 005/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nanogate AG (Quierschied, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 (Case R 2361/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of figurative sign metals as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nanogate AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/30

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell.)

(Case T-776/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark iCell. - Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL - 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)))

(2017/C 437/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden) (represented by: J. Kroher, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 (Case R 2496/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/35

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission

(Case T-254/16) (1)

((State aid - Iron and steel industry - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of several undertakings in the iron and steel industry - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))

(2018/C 022/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) SA (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. van den Broucke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, É. Gippini Fournier and K. Herrmann, and, subsequently, É. Gippini Fournier, V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) granted by Belgium to Duferco (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) SA to bear its own costs;

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

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/16

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — HD v Parliament

(Case T-652/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Prohibition of overlapping allowances of the same type - Claim for recovery of undue payments - Protection of personal data - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 013/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HD (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016, HD v Parliament (F-136/15, EU:F:2016:169), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders HD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/22

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T-703/16 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Early termination - Article 47(b)(ii) of the CEOS - Terms of notice - Liability - Non-material damage))

(2018/C 042/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant arising from the decision of the director of the ECDC, communicated to him on 24 February 2012, to terminate early his contract as a member of the contract staff.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to pay CJ, in respect of non-material damage, the sum of EUR 2 000;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case F-161/12;

3. Orders CJ and the ECDC to bear their own costs in the original proceedings before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-161/12, the appeal proceedings in Case T-370/15 P and the present proceedings on referral.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/25

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON)

(Case T-123/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark BURLINGTON - Earlier national word marks BURLINGTON and BURLINGTON ARCADE - Earlier EU and national figurative marks BURLINGTON ARCADE - 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) - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 1635/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tulliallan Burlington and Burlington Fashion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/23

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)

(Case T-866/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SilverTours GmbH (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2016 (Case R 206/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign billiger-mietwagen.de as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SilverTours GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/27

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (OJO sunglasses)

(Case T-792/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark OJO sunglasses - Earlier international word mark oio - 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 052/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: N & C Franchise Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia, and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eschenbach Optik GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 (Case R 32/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Eschenbach Optik and N & C Franchise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders N & C Franchise Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/38

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

(Case T-851/16) (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 8 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 104/49)

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) 6029 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 8 March 2016, adopted following their meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister on 7 March 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls European Commission Decision C(2016) 6029 final of 19 September 2016, in so far as it refuses to grant partial access to Access Info Europe to the first sentence of the part entitled ‘Legal framework’ of the Commission document with the reference Ares(2016) 2453347, and to the first sentence of point I(a) entitled ‘EU Legal Framework’, of Attachment 1 to the Commission document with the reference Ares(2016) 2453181;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/35

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Display box for cornets)

(Case T-793/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a display box for cornets - Earlier international registration designating Bulgaria - Ground for invalidity - Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 - Duty of diligence - Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))

(2018/C 104/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, 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, intervener before the Court: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 (Case R 1143/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret and Mrs Zaharieva.

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 12 September 2016 (Case R 1143/2015-3);

2. Grants the application for a declaration that the design registered under number 002343244-0002 is invalid;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

4. Orders Mrs Elka Zaharieva to bear her own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/29

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — Gifi Diffusion v EUIPO — Crocs (Footwear)

(Case T-424/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing footwear - Earlier Community design - Grounds for invalidity - Duty to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion - Powers of the Board of Appeal - Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))

(2018/C 152/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France) (represented by: C. de Chassey, 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, intervener before the General Court: Crocs, Inc. (Niwot, Colorado, United States) (represented by: H. Seymour, L. Cassidy, J. Guise and D. Knight, Solicitors, N. Hadjadj Cazier, M. Berger and H. Haouideg, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2016 (Case R 37/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gifi Diffusion and Crocs.

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 25 April 2016 (Case R 37/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Gifi Diffusion and Crocs, Inc.;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Gifi Diffusion in the proceedings before the General Court;

3. Orders Crocs to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/47

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)

(Case T-843/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Foto Paradies - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Strack and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, R. Manea and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Digital Print Group O. Schimek GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 (R 1194/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Digital Print Group O. Schimek and dm-drogerie markt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case T-312/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — 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) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

(Case T-312/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — 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) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain) (represented by: S. García Cabezas and R. Fernández Iglesias, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 2870/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Romanov Holding and Walfood.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/28

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE)

(Case T-806/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLOS DE LA TORRE - Earlier national word mark TORRES - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 166/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agricola J.M., SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: J. Clos Creus, lawyer)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 2099//2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Agricola J.M.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Agricola J.M., SL to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case T-818/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

(Case T-818/16) ( 1 )

‛(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)’

Parties

Applicants: Netflix International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Netflix, Inc. (Los Gatos, California, United States) (represented by: C. Alberdingk Thijm, S. van Schaik, S. van Velze and E.H. Janssen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, G. Braun and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 63).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Declares that there is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Filmförderungsanstalt;

3. Orders Netflix International BV and Netflix, Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene;

4. Orders Netflix International, Netflix, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Filmförderungsanstalt each to bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

( 1 ) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.