ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/31

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2016 — The Art Company B & S v EUIPO — Manifatture Daddato and Laurora (SHOP ART)

(Case T-735/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark SHOP ART - Earlier EU figurative mark art - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 022/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain) (represented by: L. Sánchez Calderón and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Manifatture Daddato SpA (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sabina Laurora (Trani, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2015 (Case R 3050/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Art Company B & S, on the one hand, and Manifatture Daddato and Ms Laurora, on the other.

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 8 October 2015 (Case R 3050/2014-1);

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/33

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2016 — Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)

(Case T-67/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN - Earlier EU figurative marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Production of additional evidence - Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Remittal of the case in part to the Opposition Division - Article 64(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 006/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polo Club (Gassin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by V. Melgar and H. Kunz and subsequently by H. O’Neil, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Russo and V. Wellens, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2014 (Case R 1882/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lifestyle Equities and Polo Club.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Polo Club to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/28

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Miquel Alimentació Grup (Gourmet)

(Case T-212/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Gourmet - Earlier national word and figurative marks GOURMET and Gourmet - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 038/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miquel Alimentació Grup, SA (Vilamalla, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll and R. Niebel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2015 (Case R 0314/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Miquel Alimentació Grup and Aldi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/46

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Puro Italian Style v EUIPO (smartline)

(Case T-744/15) (1)

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

(2017/C 030/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Puro Italian Style SpA (Modena, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2015 (Case R 2258/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign smartline as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Puro Italian Style SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/24

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-381/15) (1)

((Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Strengthened audit and monitoring measures and verification warning in the early warning system (EWS) - Decision suspending the possibility for the applicant to conclude contracts for indirect management with the Commission having regard to doubts regarding its status as an international organisation - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - No interest in bringing proceedings - Partial inadmissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Application for damages))

(2017/C 078/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A.Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and S. Bartelt, Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter in which that institution orders the strengthening of audit and monitoring measures and the issuing of a verification warning and refuses to allow the applicant to conclude contracts with the Commission for indirect management and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of the measures envisaged in that letter.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as International Management Group (IMG) seeks the annulment of the registration of a verification warning with regard to it in the early warning system;

2. Dismisses the action as inadmissible or unfounded as to the remainder;

3. Orders IMG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/17

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol

(Case T-719/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Implied rejection decision - Decision rejecting the complaint - Duty to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff))

(2017/C 070/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: LP (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [confidential] (2), and seeking annulment of that order.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders LP to bear his/her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office (Europol) in the present instance.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

(2) Confidential information hidden.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/34

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA

(Case T-441/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Multiple framework contract involving the ‘cascade’ system EMA/2012/10/ICT - External service provision for software applications - Request to provide services addressed to the applicants - Rejection of the candidates proposed by the applicants - Proportionality - Reclassification in part of the action - Non-contractual liability))

(2017/C 112/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, then M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, G. Gavriilidou and P. Eyckmans, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the EMA’s decision of 4 June 2015, notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail from the IT Resource Manager, rejecting two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in response to the request for services SC001, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and asking for compensation for the harm that the applicants had allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
2.

Declares that LD is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property office in the present proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/33

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)

(Case T-638/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ALCOLOCK - United Kingdom word mark ALCOLOCK - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark))

(2017/C 151/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: E. Baud and P. Marchiset, lawyers)

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: Lion Laboratories Ltd (Barry, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2015 (Case R 1323/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Lion Laboratories and Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/17

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — SEAE v KL

(Case T-278/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2013 promotion procedure - Non-inclusion in the list of promoted officials - No error of law))

(2017/C 129/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented initially by S. Marquardt and M. Silva, then by S. Marquardt, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: KL (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal [confidential] (2) seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by KL in the present proceedings;

3) Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs incurred in the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

(2) Confidential information omitted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/17

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)

(Case T-680/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination))

(2017/C 202/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 2266/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Les Éclaires and L’éclaireur International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Les Éclaires GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by L’éclaireur International before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/22

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

(Case T-35/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 161/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and subsequently S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7), in so far as the name of the applicant has been included in the list of the persons and bodies to which the restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they concern Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry.

(1) OJ C 89 of 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/36

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2017 — Lidl Siftung v EUIPO (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!)

(Case T-623/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT! - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 277/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, A. Marx and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2015 (Case R 479/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT! as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/44

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — Guardian Europe v European Union

(Case T-673/15) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Representation of the European Union - Barring of actions - Nullification of the legal effects of a decision which has become final - Precision of the application - Admissibility - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time - Equal treatment - Material damage - Losses sustained - Loss of profit - Non-material damage - Causal link))

(2017/C 239/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guardian Europe Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Louis, lawyer, and C. O’Daly, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union represented by the European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, A. Dawes and P. van Nuffel, Agents), and by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, Agents).

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant because of, first, the length of the proceedings in the case giving rise to the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494), and, secondly, the infringement of the principle of equal treatment in Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass) and in the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay compensation of EUR 654 523,43 to Guardian Europe Sàrl for the material damage sustained by that company because of the infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time in the case giving rise to the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494). That compensation is to be adjusted by applying compensatory interest, starting from 27 July 2010 and continuing up to the date of delivery of the present judgment, at the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union) in the Member State where that company is established;

2. The compensation referred to in point 1 shall be increased by default interest, starting from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Guardian Europe to bear the costs incurred by the European Union, represented by the European Commission;

5. Orders Guardian Europe, on the one hand, and the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the other, to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/10

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2017 — AlzChem v Commission

(Case T-451/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))

(2017/C 357/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented: initially by A. Borsos and J. Guerrero-Pérez, and subsequently by A. Borsos, J. Guerrero-Pérez and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 26 May 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AlzChem AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/35

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVERA)

(Case T-634/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Frinsa LA CONSERVERA - Earlier EU figurative mark FRIUSA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, 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: Frigoríficos Unidos, SA (Riudellots de la Selva, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2382/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Frigoríficos Unidos and Frinsa del Noroeste.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Frinsa del Noroeste, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/24

Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2017 — Osho Lotus Commune v EUIPO — Osho International Foundation (OSHO)

(Case T-670/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark OSHO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive 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) - No adverse effect on public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 402/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Osho Lotus Commune eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Osho International Foundation (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2015 (Case R 1997/2014-4), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Osho Lotus Commune and Osho International Foundation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Osho Lotus Commune eV to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Osho International Foundation to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.