ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/31

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — Claranet Europe v EUIPO — Claro (claranet)

(Case T-129/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark claranet - Earlier Benelux word mark CLARO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 005/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Claranet Europe Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: G. Crown, D. Farnsworth and O. Fairhurst, Solicitors, and A. Bryson, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Claro SA (São Paulo, Brazil)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 (Case R 803/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Claro and Claranet Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Claranet Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/30

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Apple (MI PAD)

(Case T-893/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MI PAD - Earlier EU word mark IPAD - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services))

(2018/C 032/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xiaomi, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and by G. Tritton, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 363/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Xiaomi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Xiaomi, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/39

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences)

(Case T-909/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NRIM Life Sciences - Earlier national word mark RYM - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001)))

(2018/C 022/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Anil K. Sharma (Hillingdon, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2376/2015-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Mr Sharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/15

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v ECB

(Case T-52/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision at the consolidated level - Group subject to prudential supervision - Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body - Article 2(21)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Capital requirements - Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 1024/2013))

(2018/C 042/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie and P. Mele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K, Lackhoff, R. Bax and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and M. Pittie, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG 7B84NLR5984/40 of the ECB of 4 December 2015 setting out the prudential requirements for the Crédit Mutuel group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Crédit mutual Arkéa to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

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

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/26

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — Spadafora v Commission

(Case T-250/16) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded - Application to have that order set aside - Post of Head of the Legal Advice Unit of OLAF - Selection procedure - Pre-selection panel - Not included in the restricted list of proposed candidates for a final interview with the Appointing Authority - Impartiality - Claim for compensation - Loss of chance - Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given))

(2018/C 032/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Spadafora (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission (represented initially by: G. Gattinara and C. Berardis-Kayser, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016, Spadafora v Commission (F-44/15, EU:F:2016:69), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016, Spadafora v Commission (F-44/15), with the exception of the dismissal as manifestly inadmissible of the application for a declaration that, by virtue of the annulment of the decision of 30 June 2014, by which the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office appointed Ms D to the post of Head of the Legal Advice Unit of OLAF’s Investigation Support Directorate and of Decision Ares(2015) 43686 of 5 January 2015 of Ms K. Georgieva, Vice-President of the European Commission, rejecting the applicant’s claim (R/994/14), the selection procedure was vitiated by illegality from the moment that the illegality occurred;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

3. Annuls the decision of 30 June 2014, by which the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office appointed Ms D to the post of Head of the Legal Advice Unit of OLAF’s Investigation Support Directorate;

4. Annuls Decision Ares(2015) 43686 of 5 January 2015 of Ms K. Georgieva, Vice-President of the European Commission, rejecting the applicant’s claim (R/994/14);

5. Dismisses the action at first instance insofar as Mr Sergio Spadafora seeks compensation for the material loss resulting from the loss of chance to be selected for the post of Head of the Legal Advice Unit of OLAF’s Investigation Support Directorate;

6. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/17

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Novartis AG v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch)

(Case T-44/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented: initially by M.R. Douglas, and subsequently by A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, J. Bogatz, and C. Lindenthal, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2015 (Case R 2342/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between SK Chemicals and Novartis.

Operative part of the order

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/35

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Dehtochema Bitumat v ECHA

(Case T-630/16) (1)

((REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Notion of linked undertaking - Submission of a ‘Declaration of Wrong Enterprise Size’ - 50 % reduction of the amount of the applicable administrative charge - Authority of the ECHA - Cessation of production of the substance))

(2018/C 072/45)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by J.-P. Trnka, E. Maurage and M. Heikkilä, and subsequently by J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the ECHA of 7 July 2016 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for the suspension of the enforcement of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 July 2016;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/29

Judgment of the General Court of (Ninth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — POA v European Commission

(Case T-74/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an application for the registration of a name under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Documents originating from the Commission - Documents originating from a Member State - Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Obligation to state reasons - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Extent of review by the institution and the EU Courts of the Member State’s grounds for objection))

(2018/C 112/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision Ares(2015) 5632670 of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 7 December 2015 rejecting the confirmatory application made by letter of 15 September 2015, in which the applicant sought, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to documents relating, first, to the application for registration CY/PDO/0005/01243 of ‘Halloumi’ as a protected designation of origin (PDO), in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), and, second, to the earlier application for registration CY/PDO/0005/00766 of ‘Halloumi’ as a PDO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/31

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)

(Case T-105/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel - Earlier international figurative mark Marlboro - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2018/C 104/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Explosal Ltd (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Philip Morris and Explosal.

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 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO and Explosal Ltd to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Philip Morris Brands Sàrl.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/26

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-33/16) (1)

((Environment - Genetically modified products - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and 305423 - Rejection of an application for internal review of market authorisation decisions - Concept of ‘environmental law’ - Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006))

(2018/C 152/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Stein, Solicitor, K. Smith QC, and J. Stevenson, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin, L. Pignataro-Nolin and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Monsanto Europe (Antwerp, Belgium) and Monsanto Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Pittie, lawyer), Pioneer Overseas Corp. (Johnston, Iowa, United States) and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston) (represented by: G. Forwood, lawyer, J. Killick, Barrister, and S. Nordin, Solicitor)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the letter from the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety of 16 November 2015 rejecting an application for internal review, based on Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13), of implementing decisions authorising the placing on the market of the genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and 305423.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the letter of the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety of 16 November 2015, bearing the reference Ares(2015) 5145741, concerning a request for internal review, based on Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, of the implementing decisions authorising the placing on the market of the genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and 305423.

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by TestBioTech eV.

3. Orders Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company, Pioneer Overseas Corp. and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/44

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-462/16) (1)

((FEAGA - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aid - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Legitimate Expectations - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Proportionality))

(2018/C 142/57)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Acting as Agents

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 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 2016 L 173, p. 59), in so far as it concerns the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Case T-288/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Convivo v EUIPO — Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark M’Cooky — Earlier national figurative mark MR.COOK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Convivo v EUIPO — Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky)

(Case T-288/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark M’Cooky — Earlier national figurative mark MR.COOK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)’

Parties

Applicant: Convivo GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C. A. Pronaca (Quito, Ecuador)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 (Case R 1039/2015-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C. A. Pronaca and Convivo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Convivo GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

( 1 ) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/27

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA

(Case T-80/16) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Validation of an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product - Significant benefit - EMA decision refusing to validate an application for designation as an orphan medicinal product - Article 3(1)(b) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000))

(2018/C 166/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Birdling, barrister, G. Castle and S. Cowlishaw, solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo and M. Tovar Gomis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the EMA decision of 15 December 2015 refusing to validate the application submitted by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland for designation of Idursulfase-IT as an orphan medicinal product.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated 15 December 2015 refusing to validate the application submitted by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd seeking the designation of Idursulfase-IT as an orphan medicinal product;

2. Orders the EMA to bear its own costs, as well as those of Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland;

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

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Case T-760/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles)

(Case T-760/16) ( 1 )

‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)’

Parties

Applicant: Basil BV (Silvolde, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Weber and J. von der Thüsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Artex SpA (San Zeno di Cassola, Italy) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2016 (Case R 535/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Artex and Basil.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. The action is dismissed;

2. Basil BV is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 6, 9.1.2018.