ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applied to the Kingdom of the Netherlands a financial correction amounting to EUR 4 703 231,78 in respect of the non-reporting of interest on claims relating to the late payment of additional levies before 1 April 1993 and on export refunds wrongly paid before 1 April 1995;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/51

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2015 — Hikari Miso v OHIM — Nishimoto Trading (Hikari)

(Case T-751/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Hikari - Earlier national word mark HIKARI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 038/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hikari Miso Co. Ltd (Simosuwa-machi, Japan) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2394/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd and Hikari Miso Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Hikari Miso Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/48

Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2015 — Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (XKING)

(Case T-525/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark XKING - Earlier national figurative mark X - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin (Clermont-Ferrand, France) (represented initially by L. Carlini, and subsequently by E. Carrillo, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1522/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1522/2013-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin;

3. Orders Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/43

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)

(Case T-781/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TVR ENGINEERING - Earlier Community figurative mark TVR - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 098/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Whiteley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fabio Cardoni (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2532/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TVR Automotive Ltd and Fabio Cardoni.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TVR Automotive Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/15

Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2016 — DF v Commission

(Case T-782/14) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Secondment in the interest of the service - Expatriation allowance - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of undue payments))

(2016/C 090/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DF (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Zwehl, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T. Bohr, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2014, DF v Commission (F-91/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:228), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders DF to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/27

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)

(Case T-543/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark HOT SOX - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: provima Warenhandels GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Croll and H. Prange, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Renfro Corp. (Mount Airy, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: C. Schenk, M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2014 (Case R 1859/2013-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between provima Warenhandels GmbH and Renfro Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders provima Warenhandels GmbH to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/19

Judgment of the General Court of 19 February 2016 — Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik v Commission

(Case T-53/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Reimbursement of a portion of the amounts paid and flat-rate compensation - No need to adjudicate in part - Costs eligible for EU funding - Penalty clause - Manifestly excessive character))

(2016/C 111/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (Ottobrunn, Germany) (represented by: initially, M. Núñez Müller and T. Becker, and, subsequently, M. Núñez Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a declaration, first, that the Commission is not entitled to require the applicant to reimburse advances paid under three contracts and, secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation to the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the second and third heads of claim of the action;

2. Declares that the sums payable as flat-rate compensation by Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH are to be reduced by an amount equivalent to 10 % of the advances to be reimbursed under the contracts concerning the projects HyWays, HyApproval and HarmonHy;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/24

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

(Case T-326/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER - Earlier national figurative mark Joker - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: D. Lichtlen, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2014 (Case R 589/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/31

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2016 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-675/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Flat rate financial corrections - Specific financial corrections - Extension of the financial correction to a period after the communication provided for in Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006))

(2016/C 136/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458/EU of 9 July 2014 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 205, p. 62) in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the amount of EUR 2 713 208,07.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

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

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/15

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

(Case T-775/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))

(2016/C 232/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2060/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-154/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Perform and Oasis projects - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid - Counter-claim - Default interest))

(2016/C 211/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

Applications, under Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the subsidies paid to the applicant in implementation of contracts No. 215754 ‘Open architecture for accessible services, integration and standardisation’ and No. 215952 ‘A complex multi-parameter system for the effective and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of motor capacity in sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative illnesses’ concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, second, to order the Commission to pay the balance of the unpaid subsidies under those contracts and, on the other, to order the applicant, by way of counterclaim, to reimburse the subsidies unduly paid under those contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias;

2) Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 650 625,37, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 215754 ‘Open architecture for accessible services, integration and standardisation’ and No. 215952 ‘A complex multi-parameter system for the effective and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of motor capacity in sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative illnesses’ concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %;

3) Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/29

Order of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Group v EUIPO — ILIEV (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)

(Case T-567/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL - Earlier, non-registered national figurative marks GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL - Relative ground for refusal - Application of national law - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence establishing the content of the national right - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Failure to take account of evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 305/39)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Group OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dragiev and A. Andreev, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, P. Ivanov and D. Botis, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Kosta Iliev (Sofia) (represented by: S. Ganeva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1587/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Group OOD and Mr Iliev.

Operative part of the order

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1587/2013-4).

2. Orders EUIPO and Mr Kosta Iliev to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Group OOD.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/24

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION)

(Case T-654/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Revolution LLC (Washington DC, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2143/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REVOLUTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Revolution LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/27

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — TAO-AFI and SFIE-PE v Parliament and Council

(Case T-456/14) (1)

((Remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Annual adjustment - Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 - Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures - Failure to consult trade unions))

(2016/C 392/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Association des fonctionnaires indépendants pour la défense de la fonction publique européenne (TAO-AFI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) (Brussels) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and J. Vanden Eynde, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and G. Gattinara, then G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Regulations (EU) Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 and from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, respectively, p. 5 and p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Association des fonctionnaires indépendants pour la défense de la fonction publique européenne (TAO-AFI) and Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/24

Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Nutria v Commission

(Case T-832/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Refusal to extend the deadline for the withdrawal of skimmed milk powder in the context of the programme for the distribution of food aid to the most deprived persons in the European Union for the year 2010 - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2016/C 326/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nutria AE Typopoiisis & Emporias Agrotikon Proïonton (Agios Konstantinos, Greece) (represented by: initially M.-J. Jacquot and subsequently K. Makaronas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Guillem Carrau, D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant allegedly sustained on account of the Commission’s refusal to extend the deadline for the withdrawal of skimmed milk powder set in Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1111/2009 of 19 November 2009 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2010 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 (OJ 2009 L 306, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nutria AE Typopoiisis & Emporias Agrotikon Proïonton to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/12

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-437/14) (1)

((EAGGF, Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Integrated administration and control system - Reductions and exclusions where the rules on cross-compliance are not observed - Flat-rate financial correction imposed by the Commission in accordance with internal guidelines - Burden of proof - Interpretation of Annexe II to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009))

(2016/C 410/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and J. Kraehling, acting as Agents, and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Skelly and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of nine entries from the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2014/191/EU of 4 April 2014 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 104, p. 43), insofar as concerns the item, in the Annex to the decision, relating to the financial corrections applied to expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Scotland during the financial years 2008, 2009 and 2010 totalling EUR 5 606 459,48 because that expenditure did not comply with EU rules.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.