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

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — AZ v Commission

(Case T-196/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Germany for some large electricity consumers - Exemption from network charges in respect of the 2012-2013 period - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful, and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of aid - State resources - Selectivity - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations)

(2021/C 471/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: AZ (represented by: F. Wagner, D. Fouquet, T. Hartmann and M. Kachel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, and G. Quardt and C. von Donat, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/56 of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/c) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

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

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-317/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance ethoprophos - Non-renewal of approval - Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2022/C 128/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AMVAC Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-556/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI - Earlier national certification word marks ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity between services and goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 73/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden) (represented by: P. Nihlmark and L. Zacharoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1284/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Fontana Food.

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 29 May 2019 (Case R 1284/2018-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;

3. Orders Fontana Food AB to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — Canon v Commission

(Case T-609/19) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Medical equipment manufacturing sector - Decision imposing fines for implementing a concentration prior to notification and authorisation - Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Interim transaction and ultimate transaction - Parking structure - Single concentration - Rights of the defence - Legitimate expectations - Principle of legality - Proportionality - Amount of fines - Mitigating circumstances)

(2022/C 276/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Canon Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: U. Soltész, W. Bosch, C. von Köckritz, K. Winkelmann, M. Reynolds, J. Schindler, D. Arts and W. Devroe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-L. Meyer and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4559 final of 27 June 2019 imposing fines for failing to notify a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and for implementing a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) of that regulation (Case M.8179 — Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Canon Inc. to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Govern d’Andorra v EUIPO (Andorra)

(Case T-806/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Andorra - 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))

(2022/C 171/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Govern d’Andorra (Andorra la Vella, Andorra) (represented by: P. González Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 (Case R 737/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of figurative sign Andorra as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Govern d’Andorra to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 –Corneli v ECB

(Case T-502/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Early intervention measures - Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Action for annulment - Action brought by a shareholder - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest separate from that of the bank - Admissibility - Error of law in the determination of the legal basis - Interpretation of national law by the EU Courts in conformity with EU law - Limit - Prohibition on interpreting national law contra legem)

(2022/C 463/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, L. Boggio and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, D. Triantafyllou and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration, as well as of any consequent or subsequent act, including, inter alia, ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the duration of the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Francesca Corneli;

4. Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — AI and Others v ECDC

(Case T-864/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECDC staff members - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Prior warnings - Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Opening of an investigation - Reasonable time period - Liability - Unlawfulness)

(2022/C 359/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AI, HV, HW, HY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

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

Re:

By their action brought under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 17 December 2019, the applicants, AI, HV, HW and HY, seek compensation for the harm which they claim to have suffered as a result, essentially, of the lack of an appropriate response from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in relation to the conduct of A (Head of Unit) towards them between 2012 and 2018, constituting, in their view, psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA)

(Case T-153/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 110/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2019 (Case R 2346/2019 2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIGHTYOGA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Promed v EUIPO — Centrumelektroniki (Promed)

(Case T-30/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Promed - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 35/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Promed GmbH kosmetische Erzeugnisse (Farchant, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, B. Reinisch and C. Raßmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, V. Ruzek and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Centrumelektroniki sp.j. (Tarnowskie Góry, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2019 (Case R 614/2019 5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Centrumelektroniki and Promed kosmetische Erzeugnisse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Promed GmbH kosmetische Erzeugnisse to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 –Kfz-Gewerbes v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)

(Case T-354/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a fish - Earlier national word mark BLINKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 217/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The Blink Fish Srl (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 (Case R 2333/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes and The Blink Fish.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Sonova v EUIPO — Digitmarket (B-Direct)

(Case T-61/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark B-Direct - Earlier EU figurative mark bizdirect - 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 163/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sonova AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Sabellek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Digitmarket — Sistemas de lnformação SA (Maia, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 88/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Digitmarket — Sistemas de Informação and Sonova.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sonova AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Bavaria Weed v EUIPO (BavariaWeed)

(Case T-178/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark BavariaWeed - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 252/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bavaria Weed GmbH (Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany) (represented by: J. Wolhändler, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 (Case R 1458/2019-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign BavariaWeed as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bavaria Weed GmbH to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — France Agro v EUIPO — Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs)

(Case T-311/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 242/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: France Agro (Avignon, France) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Choumicha Chafay (Casablanca, Morocco) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 1621/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Chafay and France Agro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders France Agro to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories (HYAL)

(Case T-215/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark HYAL - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Audi alteram partem rule - Obligation to state reasons - Sound administration and equal treatment - Article 165(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 310/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H.P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska, V. Ruzek and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2020 (Case R 613/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories and Fidia farmaceutici.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fidia farmaceutici SpA to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Himmel v EUIPO — Ramirez Monfort (Hispano Suiza)

(Case T-177/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Hispano Suiza - Earlier EU word mark HISPANO SUIZA - 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 278/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Erwin Leo Himmel (Walchwil, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Gomoll, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gonzalo Andres Ramirez Monfort (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2020 (Case R 67/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Himmel and Mr Ramirez Monfort.

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 21 January 2020 (Case R 67/2019-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Frommer v EUIPO — Minerva (I-cosmetics)

(Case T-205/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark I-cosmetics - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 338/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Angela Frommer (Unterschleißheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Remmertz, lawyer)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Case R 675/2019-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Minerva and Ms Frommer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Angela Frommer to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Minerva GmbH to bear its own costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — MCM Products v EUIPO — The Nomad Company (NOMAD)

(Case T-285/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark NOMAD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MCM Products AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Eichhammer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Nomad Company BV (Zevenaar, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Tigu, lawyer

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 (Case R 854/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between MCM Products and The Nomad Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MCM Products AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Upper Echelon Products LLC v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort)

(Case T-562/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Everlasting Comfort - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 368/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Upper Echelon Products LLC (Austin, Texas, United States)) (represented by: M. Izquierdo Blanco, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 (Case R 952/2020-1) relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Everlasting Comfort

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Upper Echelon Products LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.