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

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (CROPXPLORER)

(Case T-301/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark CROPXPLORER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 119/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 (Case R 387/2021-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign CROPXPLORER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CNH Industrial NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals)

(Case T-206/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two animals - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an animal - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 207/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Oliver Kalita (Jochberg, Austria), Christian Haas (Kitzbühel, Austria) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Kitzbühel) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 (Case R 863/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Kitzbühel Tourismus and, on the other, Mr Kalita and Mr Haas.

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 2 February 2021 (Case R 863/2021-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Oliver Kalita and Mr Christian Haas;

3. Orders Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Kalita and Mr Haas.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL)

(Case T-315/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark APIAL - Earlier EU word mark APIRETAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2022/C 198/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Miralles Llorca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nordesta GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 (Case R 1560/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Nordesta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-57/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Obligation to increase on-the-spot checks - Article 35 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Legal value of the working documents of the Commission - Calculation of the increase in the rate of on-the-spot checks)

(2022/C 244/35)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, A. Sauka and Z. Teleki, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10), only in so far as the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068,02 from the amount of financial aid granted to it by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), only in so far as that the European Commission excluded the sum of EUR 4 334 068,02 from the amount of financial aid granted to Hungary by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the financial year 2018 on account of an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE)

(Case T-370/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE - Earlier EU word mark NUTRIBEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 222/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Alter Farmacia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1208/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alter Farmacia and Biogena.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1208/2020-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘dried kitchen herbs; preserved herbs and spices’ in Class 30 thereof;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Aquino v Parliament

(Case T-253/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Staff Committee of the Parliament - Election of the president of the Staff Committee - Annulment of the election - Liability)

(2022/C 284/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Bukšek Tomac, R. Ignătescu and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment (i) of the decision of the European Parliament of 7 July 2020, by which that institution annulled his election as president of the Staff Committee of the Parliament (‘the SC’), and, (ii), in essence, of the constituent meeting of the SC of 14 September 2020, in particular as regards the election of its president, and, second, compensation for the damage which he allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Roberto Aquino to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-108/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in so far as those acts concern Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — HB v Commission

(Case T-408/21) (1)

(Public service contracts - Provision of technical assistance services to the High Judicial Council and to the Ukrainian authorities - Irregularities in the contract award procedures - Recovery of sums wrongly paid - Enforceable decisions - Article 299 TFEU - Competence of the author of the act - Non-contractual liability of the Union)

(2022/C 340/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt in the amount of EUR 4 241 507,00 payable by the applicant under the contract with reference TACIS/2006/101-510, and of Commission Decision C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt in the amount of EUR 1 197 055,86 payable by the applicant under the contract with reference CARDS/2008/166-429; and, secondly, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, the reimbursement of any amounts recovered by the European Commission on the basis of those decisions, together with late-payment interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) plus seven points, and the payment of symbolic damages of EUR 1, subject to increase, for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt of EUR 4 241 507 payable by HB and Commission Decision C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt of EUR 1 197 055,86 payable by HB;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders HB and the European Commission each to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM)

(Case T-293/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark UM - Genuine use of the mark - Use with the consent of the proprietor - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Representation by the proprietor of the trade mark - Evidence of use submitted within the time limit set)

(2022/C 294/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ulrike Muschaweck (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joachim Conze (Munich) (represented by: H. Bolte, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 2260/2019-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Muschaweck and Mr Conze.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Ulrike Muschaweck to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — TL v Commission

(Case T-677/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Appraisal report for 2019 - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Setting of objectives - Misuse of powers - Liability)

(2022/C 359/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

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

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of her appraisal report for 2019 or, in the alternative, its partial annulment and, so far as necessary, of the decision of the European Commission’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 8 July 2021 dismissing her complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against that report, and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered due to the unlawfulness of that report.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TL to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (TALIS)

(Case T-283/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TALIS - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 340/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, 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: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 888/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

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 23 March 2021 (Case R 888/2020-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OE v Commission

(Case T-486/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Teleworking - Claim for reimbursement of telephone and Internet connection expenses - Claim rejected - Plea of illegality - Partial admissibility - Article 71 of and Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Principle of equality and non-discrimination - Right to respect for private life)

(2022/C 418/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OE (represented by: G. Hervet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch, S. Bukšek Tomac and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, acting as Agent)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) of the European Commission of 18 December 2020 rejecting her claim for reimbursement of the professional expenses resulting from the teleworking arrangements imposed on her and for a 4G USB dongle, and, secondly, an order that the Commission, first of all, reimburse her for those expenses, next, provide her with that Internet access and, lastly, pay her compensation of EUR 10 000 for the damage she has allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders OE to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Decides that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl)

(Case T-156/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Marker Völkl - Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 418/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 January 2021 (Case R 0055/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue)

(Case T-168/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of light blue - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Limitation of goods designated by the trade mark application - Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Requirements of clarity and precision - Article 33(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec GmbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2021 (Case R 217/2020-4).

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 18 January 2021 (Case R 217/2020-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT)

(Case T-423/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT - Earlier national figurative mark GIOIA DI MARE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sebastiano Gioioso (Fasano, Italy) (represented by: F. Amati, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Maxi Di Srl (Belfiore, Italy)

Re:

By his application based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2021 (Case R 1650/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action.

2. orders Mr Sebastiano Gioioso to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (TOGETHER. FORWARD.)

(Case T-500/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark TOGETHER. FORWARD. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 472/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez, M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2021 (Case R 417/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC)

(Case T-802/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark JUST ORGANIC - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: just-organic.com GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 October 2021 (Case: R 1010/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders just-organic.com GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.