ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-268/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 329/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Pekař and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

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

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

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Zoom v EUIPO — Facetec (ZOOM)

(Case T-204/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark ZOOM - Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM - 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) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 329/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoom KK (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Zajfert, 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: Facetec, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 (Case R 507/2019 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Zoom KK and Facetec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zoom KK to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL)

(Case T-65/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark KNEISSL - Partial revocation - No genuine use of the mark - Extent of use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Abuse of rights)

(2021/C 357/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kneissl Holding GmbH (Ebbs, Austria) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: LS 9 GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 2265/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between LS 9 and Kneissl Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kneissl Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet)

(Case T-622/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Cachet - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 349/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2020 (Case R 452/2020-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Cachet as an EU trade mark.

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 11 August 2020 (Case R 452/2020-4) in so far as it concerns the ‘sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ referred to in the trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — IY v Parliament

(Case T-154/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Political group - Dismissal - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard - Equal treatment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Principle of sound administration - Liability)

(2021/C 431/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IY (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Scafarto and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 4 July 2019 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, second, compensation for the non-material harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders IY to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Wong (GT RACING)

(Case T-463/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GT RACING - Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing bold curved, vertical and horizontal lines - Earlier EU word mark GT - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier non-registered national marks - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing off - No misrepresentation - Use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom)

(2021/C 422/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wai Leong Wong (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 1612/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Mr Wong.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 –Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-106/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Gabriel Amisi Kumba to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — MHCS v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Shade of the colour orange)

(Case T-274/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU mark depicting a shade of the colour orange - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Nature of the mark - Colour mark - Right to be heard - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 452/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MHCS (Épernay, France) (represented by: O. Vrins and B. Raus, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and K. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. & MHCS.

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 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS;

3. Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v EUIPO (MASTIHACARE)

(Case T-60/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International Registration designating the European Union - Word mark MASTIHACARE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive 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) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 471/62)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou (Chios, Greece) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2019 (Case R 692/2019-1), relating to the international registration of the word mark MASTIHACARE designating the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Henry Cotton’s Brand Management v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear (Henry Cotton’s)

(Case T-173/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Proceedings for the revocation of decisions or for the cancellation of entries - Cancellation of an entry in the register which contains an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Trade marks involved in insolvency proceedings - Registration of the transfers of the marks - Effects vis-à-vis third parties of bankruptcy or similar proceedings - Competence of EUIPO - Duty of diligence - Articles 20, 24, 27 and 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Articles 3, 7 and 19 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848)

(2021/C 462/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Co. Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Industries Sportswear Co. Srl (Venice, Italy) (represented by: P. Cervato, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Joined Cases R 254/2019-2 and R 255/2019-2), relating to proceedings between Industries Sportswear and Henry Cotton’s Brand Management regarding the cancellation of entries in the register.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Industries Sportswear Co. Srl.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 –Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria)

(Case T-12/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative trade mark Frutaria - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Nature of use)

(2021/C 490/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez and C. Anadón Giménez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 (Case R 284/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between M. Schneider and Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Markus Schneider to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita Company (JUVEDERM)

(Case T-397/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 481/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 (Case R 877/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Allergan Holdings France SAS to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and two-thirds of the costs incurred by Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. relating to the present proceedings;

4. Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to bear a third of its own costs relating to the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Spisto v Commission

(Case T-572/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criterion to assess professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 2/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amanda Spisto (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the refusal to admit the applicant to the next phase of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19, and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint of the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the exclusion of Ms. Amanda Spisto from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Square v EUIPO — ($ Cash App)

(Case T-210/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark $ Cash App - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Equal treatment and principle of sound administration)

(2021/C 502/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by K. Lüder and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 (Case R 811/2019-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark $ Cash App.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Square, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

(Case T-658/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cup - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 (Case R 554/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a cup as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Philip Jakober to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Egis Bâtiments International and InCA v Parliament

(Case T-610/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Settlement agreement - Confidentiality clause - Principle of good faith - Contractual liability)

(2022/C 2/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Egis Bâtiments International (Montreuil, France) and InCA — Ingénieurs Conseils Associés Sàrl (Niederanven, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Rodesch and R. Jazbinsek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Caiola and L. Chrétien, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking (i) a declaration that the Parliament has infringed Article VIII of the settlement agreement of 9 April 2019 and has breached the duty of good faith in the performance of agreements enshrined in Article 1134 of the Luxembourg Civil Code and (ii) an order that that institution is to pay a sum of EUR 100 000 under that same agreement or, in the alternative, that it is to pay any other sum to be fixed ex aequo et bono.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Egis Bâtiments International and InCA — Ingénieurs Conseils Associés Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.