ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/28

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé)

(Case T-690/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé - Earlier EU figurative mark café crem - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 078/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Majer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 2586/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marcas Costa Brava and Excellent Brands JMI.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/24

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN)

(Case T-250/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLAN - Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue - Relevant public - Interdependence of the criteria - Power to alter - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Cormack and G. Anderson, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 220/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between William Grant & Sons Ltd and Speciality Drinks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Speciality Drinks Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/44

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Jaguar Land Rover v EUIPO — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider)

(Case T-71/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Land Glider - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks LAND ROVER - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama, Japan) (A. Franke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan Jidosha.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd;

3. Orders Nissan Jidosha KK to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/22

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — International Management Group v Commission

(Case T-29/15) (1)

((Development cooperation - Annual Action Programme in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union - Budget implementing decision - Modification - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound financial management - Principle of good administration - Transparency - Remedy - Legitimate expectations))

(2017/C 078/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller, C. Farrell, Solicitors, and E. Wright, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 9787 final of 16 December 2014, amending Implementing Decision C(2013) 7682 final on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders International Management Group to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/34

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-117/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States - Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission - Refusal of the request - Act not open to challenge - Confirmatory measure - No new substantive particulars - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 144/44)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Naaber-Kivisoo and M.P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, then by P. Ondrůšek, assisted by M. Kärson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 declining to amend European Commission Decision 2006/776/EC of 13 November 2006 on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (OJ 2006 L 314, p. 35).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/27

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Silvan v Commission

(Case T-698/15) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - 2013 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the appellant - Comparison of the merits - Taking into account of staff reports - No error of law))

(2017/C 121/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Juha Tapio Silvan (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015, Silvan v Commission (F-83/14, EU:F:2015:106), and asking for annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Mr Juha Tapio Silvan to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/20

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Deere v EUIPO (EXHAUST-GARD)

(Case T-622/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark EXHAUST-GARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 195/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deere & Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by N. Weber and T. Heitmann, and subsequently by N. Weber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 (Case R 196/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EXHAUST-GARD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deere & Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/34

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-733/15) (1)

((Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that a State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Penalty payment - Decision quantifying the penalty payment - Repeal of the contested national measure - Date on which the infringement was brought to an end))

(2017/C 151/43)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. Figueiredo, acting as Agents, and L. Silva Morais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2015)4178538 of 8 October 2015 requesting payment by the Portuguese Republic of the sum of EUR 580 000, corresponding to the quantified penalty payment, for the period from 25 June to 21 August 2014, in compliance with the judgment of 25 June 2014, Commission v Portugal (C-76/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2029).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/19

Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2017 — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane v EUIPO (NSU)

(Case T-541/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NSU - Prior national word mark NSU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 256/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane Srl (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (represented by: M. Gurrado, lawyer)

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: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2015 (Case R 2132/2014-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Audi and Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/28

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — KK v EASME

(Case T-376/15) (1)

((Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Call for proposals in respect of the 2014-2015 work programme - Programme to support innovation within SMEs - EASME decision declaring a proposal ineligible - ‘Single submission’ rule - Evaluation review procedure - E-portal for filing proposals temporarily inaccessible - Error of assessment - Infringement of the procedural rules - Non-contractual liability))

(2017/C 213/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KK (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) (represented by: A. Pallares Allueva and E. Fierro Sedano, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EASME of 15 June 2015 rejecting the proposal submitted by the applicant in response to the Call for proposals and related activities under the 2014-15 work programmes under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) and under the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-18) complementing Horizon 2020 (OJ 2013 C 361, p. 9) and, in addition, seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that rejection.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KK to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/33

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line)

(Case T-521/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a capital letter ‘D’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Gaul, M. Frank, A. Parassina and K. Dani, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2015 (Case R 3291/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Diesel and Sprinter megacentros del deporte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 June 2015 (Case R 3291/2014-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Diesel SpA;

3. Orders Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/32

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Azarov v Council

(Case T-215/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Duty to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to property - Right to conduct a business - Proportionality - Misuse of power - Principle of sound administration - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 277/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures at issue.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/38

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL)

(Case T-411/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL - Earlier EU word mark GAP - Cross-appeal - Relative grounds 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) - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 382/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gap (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Siciarek and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Gap (ITM) and PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska.

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 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark), the application for registration in respect of goods falling within Class 20 and corresponding to the description ‘furniture’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

(1) OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/9

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Contact Software v Commission

(Case T-751/15) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Markets for computer-aided design software and for interface information about that software - Decision to reject a complaint - Relevant market - Manifest error of assessment - No EU interest))

(2017/C 369/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Contact Software GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vollrath, I. Zaloguin and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Dassault systèmes (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, and J. Messent, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 7006 final of 9 October 2015 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant regarding infringements of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by Dassault systèmes and Parametric Technology Corp. on certain markets for computer-aided design software and certain markets for interface information about that software (Case COMP/39846 — Contact/Dassault & Parametric).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Contact Software GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission;

3. Orders Dassault systèmes to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/12

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)

(Case T-140/15) (1)

((Plant varieties - Nullity proceedings - Sugar beet variety M 02205 - Article 20(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 7 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Distinctness of the candidate variety - Technical examination - Procedure before the Board of Appeal - Obligation to analyse carefully and impartially all the elements relevant to the present case - Power to alter))

(2018/C 013/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented: initially by L.-B. Buchman, lawyer, and subsequently by L.-B. Buchman, R. Crespi and M. Razou, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented: initially by F. Mattina, subsequently by M. Mattina and M. Ekvad, and finally by M. Mattina, M. Ekvad and A. Weitz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the Court: SESVanderhave NV (Tirlemont, Belgium) (represented: initially by K. Neefs and P. de Jong and subsequently by P. de Jong, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 26 November 2014 (Case A 010/2013) concerning nullity proceedings between Aurora and SESVanderhave.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 26 November 2014 (Case A 010/2013);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the CPVO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aurora Srl;

4. Orders SESVanderhave NV to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/28

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-394/15) (1)

((Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Duty to state reasons - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Judicial review))

(2017/C 424/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree, C. van der Hoeven and G. Hakopian, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, J. Szczodrowski, H. van Vliet and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo) (OJ 2015, C 145, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo);

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.