ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Set v Commission

(Case T-794/19) (1)

(State aid - Italian electricity market - Capacity mechanism - Decision not to raise objections - Availability of the electricity production capacity - Modification of the capacity mechanism - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of interested parties - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020)

(2022/C 418/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Set SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: N. Aicardi, T. Ferrario and M. Vasari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G. Aiello, P. Garofoli and A. Giordano, avvocati dello Stato), EP Produzione SpA (Rome) (represented by: D. Gullo and M. Bozzo, lawyers), A2A SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Gullo and M. Bozzo, lawyers), Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Luciani, G. Roberti, A. Travi, R. Villata and I. Perego, lawyers), Enel Produzione SpA (Rome) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro, S. Ventura and L. Caroli, lawyers), Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane (Rome) and Utilitalia (Rome) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Perfetti, lawyers), Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome) (represented by: A. Catricalà, D. Lipani, F. Sbrana, C. Cazzato, F. Baglivo and M. Pirozzi, lawyers), Alperia Trading Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, L. Perfetti and A. Rosi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4509 final of 14 June 2019 concerning State Aid SA.53821 (2019/N) — Italy Modification of the Italian capacity mechanism, by which the Commission decided not to raise objections to the aid scheme relating to that modified capacity market, on the ground that it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, and to authorise it until 31 December 2028.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Set SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Declares that the Italian Republic is to bear its own costs;

4. Declares that EP Produzione SpA, A2A SpA, Edison SpA, Alperia Trading Srl, Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane, Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA and Enel Produzione SpA are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-259/20) (1)

(State aid - French air transport market - Deferral of payment of civil aviation tax and solidarity tax on airline tickets due on a monthly basis during the period from March to December 2020 in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Free provision of services - Equal treatment - Criterion of holding a licence issued by the French authorities - Proportionality - Article 107(2)(b) TFEU - Duty to state reasons)

(2021/C 138/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. C. Laprévote, S. Rating and I. G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, C. Mosser, A. Daniel and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 2097 final of 31 March 2020 on State Aid SA.56765 (2020/N) — France — Covid-19 — Deferral of the payment of airline taxes in favour of public air transport undertakings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the request for confidential treatment;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-118/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 62/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of packaging as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)

(Case T-44/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves - Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 1041/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Chanel to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — Alvargonzález Ramos v EUIPO — Ursus-3 Capital, A.V. (URSUS Kapital)

(Case T-114/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark URSUS Kapital - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Assessment of the evidence - Classification of the services)

(2021/C 189/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Pablo Erik Alvargonzález Ramos (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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: Ursus-3 Capital, A.V., SA (Madrid)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 (Case R 711/2019-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Ursus-3 Capital, A.V. and Mr Alvargonzález Ramos.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Pablo Erik Alvargonzález Ramos to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Ryanair v Commission (TAP; Covid-19)

(Case T-465/20) (1)

(State aid - Portuguese air transport market - Aid provided by Portugal to TAP owing to the COVID-19 pandemic - State loan - Decision not to raise any objections - Point 22 of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty - Company belonging to a group - Intrinsic difficulties not resulting from an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group - Difficulties which are too serious to be dealt with by the group itself - Duty to state reasons - Maintenance of the effects of the decision)

(2021/C 263/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, S. Rating, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis and V. Blanc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Bottka and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: P. Dodeller and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa and S. Jaulino, acting as Agents, and by N. Mimoso Ruiz, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 3989 final of 10 June 2020 on State aid SA.57369 (2020/N) COVID-19 — Portugal — Aid to TAP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 3989 final of 10 June 2020 on State aid SA.57369 (2020/N) — COVID-19 — Portugal — Aid to TAP;

2. Orders the effects of the annulment of that decision to be suspended pending the adoption of a new decision by the European Commission under Article 108 TFEU; those effects are to be suspended for a period not exceeding two months from the date of delivery of this judgment if the Commission decides to adopt such a new decision under Article 108(3) TFEU, and for a reasonable further period if the Commission decides to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC;

4. Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2021 — Grangé and Van Strydonck v EUIPO — Nema (âme)

(Case T-442/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark âme - Earlier international figurative mark AMEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Counteraction of visual and phonetic similarities through conceptual differences - Conditions for counteraction)

(2021/C 242/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Isaline Grangé (Edegem, Belgium), Alizée Van Strydonck (Strombeek-Bever, Belgium) (represented by: M. De Vroey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Villani and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nema Srl (San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 2960/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Nema, on the one hand, and Ms Grangé and Ms Van Strydonck, on the other.

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 4 June 2020 (Case R 2960/2019-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Isaline Grangé and Ms Alizée Van Strydonck, including the costs necessarily incurred by Ms Grangé and Ms Van Strydonck for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Chanel v EUIPO — Innovative Cosmetic Concepts (INCOCO)

(Case T-196/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark INCOCO - Earlier national word marks COCO - 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))

(2021/C 310/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Pétrequin, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC (Clifton, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, J. Oria Sousa-Montes and P. Revuelta Martos, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2020 (Case R 194/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Innovative Cosmetic Concepts.

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 16 January 2020 (Case R 194/2019-1);

2. Orders EUIPO and Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — KZ v Commission

(Case T-453/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2019 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Plea of illegality - Leave on personal grounds - Ineligibility for promotion)

(2021/C 297/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KZ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission, published in Administrative Notices No 32-2019 of 14 November 2019, not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KZ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — ID v EEAS

(Case T-28/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Decision to dismiss before the end of the probationary period - Obvious inadequacy - Inappropriate conduct - Article 84 of the CEOS)

(2021/C 338/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ID (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 6 March 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract before the end of the probationary period and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ID to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN)

(Case T-464/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark YOUR DAILY PROTEIN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (R 2235/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign YOUR DAILY PROTEIN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL)

(Case T-697/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DONAS DULCESOL - Earlier national word mark DONAS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark - Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 422/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez, I. Robledo McClymont and M. Hernández Gázquez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hijos de Antonio Juan, SL (Villalonga, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2020 (Case R 514/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo Donuts Iberia and Hijos de Antonio Juan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — KO v Commission

(Case T-389/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Habitual residence - Period of training)

(2021/C 349/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KO (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 18 October 2019 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — France v ECHA

(Case T-127/20) (1)

(REACH - Substance evaluation - Aluminium chloride - Aluminium chloride, basic - Aluminium sulphate - ECHA decisions requesting further information - Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Multiple grounds for the decision of the Board of Appeal - Grounds capable of justifying the decision - Inoperative nature of the pleas directed against the other grounds)

(2021/C 452/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin, W. Zemamta and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, M. Goodacre and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kemira Oyj (Helsinki, Finland), Grace Silica GmbH (Düren, Germany) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 17 December 2019 annulling three decisions of ECHA of 21 December 2017 requesting the registrants concerned to carry out new tests in the context of the evaluation of aluminium chloride, aluminium chloride, basic and aluminium sulphate (joined cases A-003-2018, A-004-2018 and A-005-2018).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kemira Oyj and Grace Silica GmbH;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Eos Products v EUIPO (Shape of a spherical container)

(Case T-489/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a spherical container - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001))

(2021/C 431/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eos Products Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Stolzenburg-Wiemer, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 (Case R 2017/2019-4), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of a spherical container as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eos Products Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (PALLADIUM HOTELS & RESORTS)

(Case T-207/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTELS & RESORTS - Admissibility criteria for an application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 53(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 56(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 63(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 452/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, 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: Palladium Gestión, SL (Ibiza) (represented by: J. Rojo García-Lajara, lawyer), authorised to replace Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 231/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Residencial Palladium and Fiesta Hotels & Resorts.

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 12 February 2020 (Case R 231/2019-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Residencial Palladium, SL;

4. Orders Palladium Gestión to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.