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

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)

(Case T-93/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VANGUARD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark VANGUARD.

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 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)

(Case T-623/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MAIN AUTO WHEELS - Earlier EU figurative marks VW - Absolute ground for refusal - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 399/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2016 (Case R 2189/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Volkswagen and Paalupaikka.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — QB v ECB

(Case T-827/16) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Appraisal exercise - Staff report [2015] - Possibility of being accompanied by a union representative during the appraisal interview - Infringement of the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality on the part of the assessor - Remuneration - Decision refusing the benefit of a salary progression - Admissibility of evidence - Email exchanged between a member of staff and that person’s ‘coach’ using a work email account - Liability))

(2019/C 16/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the EU Treaty and the FEU Treaty, seeking (i) annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2015 and the ECB decision of 15 December 2015 refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression and, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the ECB decisions of 2 May and 15 September 2016 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim respectively; and (ii) damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls QB’s staff report for 2015 and the European Central Bank (ECB) decision of 15 December 2015 refusing QB the benefit of a salary progression;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by QB.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v Commission

(Case T-364/16) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China - Modification of the TARIC additional code for a company - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Whether directly concerned - Individual concern - Admissibility - Effect of a judgment annulling a decision - Rule of equivalence of form))

(2018/C 436/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic) and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 3 June 2016 to take Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd out of the list of companies listed under TARIC additional code A 950 and to list it under TARIC additional code C 129, with respect to all the combined nomenclature (CN) codes referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2015 L 322, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the European Commission Decision of 3 June 2016 to take Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd out of the list of companies listed under TARIC additional code A 950 and to list it under TARIC additional code C 129, with respect to all the combined nomenclature (CN) codes referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and the other applicants whose names are annexed.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of lines on a shoe)

(Case T-638/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing lines on a shoe - Earlier EU trade mark comprised of two stripes on the side of a shoe - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier international trade mark - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 72/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2016 (Case R 408/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deichmann and Vans.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Janoha and Others v Commission

(Case T-517/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - New provisions relating to the days of leave granted applicable to officials posted in a third country - Objection of illegality - Second paragraph of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations - Articles 7 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Equal treatment - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers))

(2019/C 44/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Andrea Janoha (Christ Church, Barbados) and the other five applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decisions reducing the number of the applicants’ days of annual leave as of 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Andrea Janoha and the other members of the contract staff of the European Commission whose names are set out in the annex, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission;

3. Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-86/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Kakol v Commission

(Cases T-641/16 RENV and T-137/17) (1)

((Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Non-admission of a candidate to take part in the tests of the assessment centre - Non-recognition of qualifications or diplomas - Admission to a previous competition - Conditions for similar competitions - Concordance rule between the request and the complaint - Res judicata - Non-compliance with the prior administrative procedure - Measure adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations - Competence of the authority which adopted the measure - Claim for damages))

(2019/C 93/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decisions of 14 February 2014, notified on 2 May 2016, and of 25 November 2016 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre tests for competition AD/177/10, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), on the ground that she did not fulfil the specific conditions relating to qualifications or diplomas required in the competition notice, or rejecting her complaint against that refusal of admission, and, secondly, that the Commission be ordered to pay her the sum of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage she allegedly suffered as a result of the vexatious nature of the processing of her application

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-641/16 RENV and T-137/17 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Rules, in Case T-641/16 RENV, that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment and, dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Dismisses the action in Case T-137/17;

4. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to Cases T-641/16 RENV and T-137/17 and Cases F-48/14 and T-152/15 P.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014 (proceedings initially brought before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-1/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission

(Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16) (1)

((Environment - Regulation (EU) 2016/646 - Pollutant emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) - Fixing, in respect of nitrogen oxide emissions, of not-to-exceed (NTE) values, during tests in real driving conditions (RDE) - Actions for annulment - Powers of a municipal authority concerning environmental protection to restrict the circulation of certain vehicles - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Lack of competence of the Commission - Compliance with higher legal norms - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment - Non-contractual liability - Compensation for alleged harm to image and reputation))

(2019/C 82/48)

Languages of the cases: Spanish and French

Parties

Applicant in Case T-339/16: Ville de Paris (France) (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

Applicant in Case T-352/16: Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele and S. Kaisergruber, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-391/16: Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: F. Zunzunegui Pastor, lawyer

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A.C. Becker, E. Sanfrutos Cano and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, applications based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1) and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for damage that the City of Paris allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls point 2 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) in so far as it fixes, in points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of Annex III A to Commission Regulation No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, the final conformity factor CFpollutant and the temporary conformity factor CFpollutant for the mass of oxides of nitrogen;

2. Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

3. Maintains the effects of the annulled provision under paragraph 1 of the present operative part until the adoption within a reasonable period of a new regulation replacing those provisions, that period not to exceed 12 months from the date on which the present judgment takes effect;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Ville de Paris, the Ville de Bruxelles and the Ayuntamiento de Madrid.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)

(Case T-220/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark PRO PLAYER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 155/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 1091/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign PRO PLAYER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))

(Case T-177/16) (1)

((New varieties of plants - Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) - Designation of another examination office - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 103/27)

Language of the case: German.

Parties

Applicant: Mema GmbH LG (Terlan, Italy) (represented by B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by M. Ekvad, F. Mattina, O. Lamberti and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the CPVO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission

(Case T-690/16) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - JRC in Ispra - Works for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and district heating/cooling substations - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 230/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Enrico Colombo (Sesto Calende, Italy) and Corinti Giacomo (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: R. Colombo and G. Turri, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: initially, S. Delaude, L. Di Paolo and P. Rosa Plaza, then S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo and, lastly, S. Delaude and A. Spina, Agents)

Re:

First, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking, in essence, annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting the tender submitted by the applicants in connection with the tendering procedure JRC/IPR/2016/C4/0002/OC, concerning a Framework agreement for the construction and maintenance of water pipes and heating/cooling substations at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra (Italy) and awarding that contract to another tenderer and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enrico Colombo SpA and Corinti Giacomo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 –Hesse and Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO (TESTA ROSSA)

(Cases T-910/16 and T 911/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark TESTA ROSSA - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of use - Outward use of the contested mark - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 187/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant in Case T-910/16: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Applicant in Case T-911/16: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court, respectively in Case T-910/16 and Case T-911/16: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH and Kurt Hesse

Re:

Actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 68/2016-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Hesse and Wedl & Hofmann.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-910/16 and T-911/16 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs in Case T-910/16;

4. Orders Wedl & Hofmann GmbH to pay the costs in Case T-911/16.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission

(Case T-417/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid to Klaipėdos Nafta for the construction and management of an LNG terminal at the Klaipėda Seaport - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 106(2) TFEU - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Decision not to raise any objections - Security of supply - Service of general economic interest)

(2019/C 399/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Achemos Grupė UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) and Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (represented initially by R. Martens and C. Maczkovics, and subsequently by R. Martens and V. Ostrovskis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, N. Kuplewatzky and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented initially by D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Dzikovič, and subsequently by R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents), Klaipėdos Nafta AB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: K. Kačerauskas and V. Vaitkutė Pavan, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7884 final of 20 November 2013, whereby State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) granted by Lithuania to Klaipėdos Nafta was declared compatible with the internal market (OJ 2016, C 161, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania and Klaipėdos Nafta AB to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)

(Case T-183/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 305/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2500/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.