ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission

(Joined Cases T-337/18 and T-347/18) (1)

(Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Refusal of approval for product-types 1, 5 and 6 - Conditional approval for product-types 2 and 4 - Risks to human health and the environment - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Article 6(7)(a) and (b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 - Harmonised classification of the active substance under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Prior consultation of the ECHA - Manifest error of assessment - Read-across - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 452/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in cases T-337/18 and T-347/18: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, S. Englebert, P. Sellar and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Applicant in case T-347/18: Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG (Gampern, Austria) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, S. Englebert, P. Sellar and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, J. Traband, E. Leclerc and W. Zemamta, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, in Case T 337/18, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 21), and, in Case T 347/18, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-337/18 and T-347/18 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. In Case T-337/18, orders Laboratoire Pareva to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures registered under number T-337/18 R and T-337/18 R II;

4. In Case T-347/18, orders Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures registered under number T-347/18 R, and orders Laboratoire Pareva also to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings for interim measures registered under number T-347/18 R II;

5. Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Lucena Ramírez v Council

(Case T-247/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tibisay Lucena Ramírez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6 ), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Tibisay Lucena Ramírez to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v Commission

(Case T-740/18) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance thiram - Non-renewal of approval - Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 - Rights of the defence - Procedural irregularity - Manifest error of assessment - Competence of EFSA - Proportionality - Precautionary principle - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 128/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Taminco BVBA (Ghent, Belgium), Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva, acting as Agent)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1500 of 9 October 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance thiram, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing thiram, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 254, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Taminco BVBA and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action;

3. Orders Taminco to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the context of the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Tokin v Commission

(Case T-343/18) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for aluminium electrolytic capacitors and tantalum electrolytic capacitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price coordination throughout the EEA - Statement of objections - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances)

(2021/C 471/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tokin Corp. (Sendai, Japan) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer, and T. Yuen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40136 — Capacitors), in so far as that decision imposes fines on the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of those fines.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tokin Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — BZ v Commission

(Case T-336/19) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Dismissal for obviously inadequate work - Proportionality - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Liability)

(2020/C 77/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2018 to dismiss the applicant in response to a report on the probationary period before the end of that period and, second, payment of compensation for the material or non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 25 July 2018 to dismiss BZ;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2019 — Idea Groupe v EUIPO — The Logistical Approach (Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-29/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there - Earlier national word marks idéa logistique, IDEA and groupe idea - Earlier national figurative mark iDÉA - International registrations designating the European Union - Earlier figurative mark iDÉA and earlier word mark IDEA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Idea Groupe (Montoir-de-Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2018 (Case R 2064/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

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 12 November 2018 (Case R 2064/2017-4);

2. Orders EUIPO and The Logistical Approach BV to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Idea Groupe.

(1) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs)

(Case T-352/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2020/C 175/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss SIA (Riga) (represented by: J. Alfejeva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 (Case R 2516/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Piejūra SIA and Gamma-A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2020 — Repsol v EUIPO (INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO)

(Case T-8/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 103/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 (Case R 1173/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Repsol, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Clatronic International v EUIPO (PROFI CARE)

(Case T-5/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark PROFI CARE - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 215/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 504/2018-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PROFI CARE.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Clatronic International GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — CV and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Weighting - Fixed entertainment allowance - Accommodation expenses - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of care - Equivalence in purchasing power - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 209/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: CV, CW and CY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision by which that institution’s appointing authority rejected the applicants’ request for, in essence, an increase, where applicable with retroactive effect, of the weighting applicable to their place of posting, in the present case Paris.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CV, CW and CY to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Leinfelder)

(Case T-577/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Revocation proceedings - European Union word mark Leinfelder - Lack of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Abuse of rights)

(2020/C 255/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Lüft, lawyer)

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: Thomas Schafft (Munich) (represented by: V. Sandulache, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 May 2019 (Joined Cases R 1930/2018 2 and R 1937/2018 2), concerning revocation proceedings between Mr Schafft and Leinfelder Uhren München.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International ([We IntelliGence the World and Others])

(Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU figurative marks We IntelliGence the World, currencymachineassistant, robodealer, currencyassistant, tradingcurrencyassistant, CKPL, moneypersonalassistant, moneyassistant, currencypersonalassistant, CNTX Trading, AIdealer and CNTX - Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing two intertwining circles or two overlapping circles - Suspension of proceedings - Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2020/C 230/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen, B. Hitchens and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton and A. Muir Wood, Barristers)

Re:

Twelve actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 (Cases R 1062/2018-2, R 1059/2018-2, R 1058/2018-2, R 1057/2018-2, R 1056/2018-2, R 1060/2018-2, R 1055/2018-2, R 1054/2018-2, R 1053/2018-2, R 986/2018-2, R 1063/2018-2 and R 1064/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between MasterCard International and Cinkciarz.pl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 December 2018 (Cases R 1062/2018-2, R 1059/2018-2, R 1058/2018-2, R 1057/2018-2, R 1056/2018-2, R 1060/2018-2, R 1055/2018-2, R 1054/2018-2, R 1053/2018-2, R 986/2018-2, R 1063/2018-2 and R 1064/2018-2);

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;

4. Orders MasterCard International, Inc. to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Court.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — FF Group Romania v EUIPO — KiK Textilien und Non-Food (_kix)

(Case T-659/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark _kix - Earlier national word mark kik - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the mark - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 339/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Căvescu, 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: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan, S. Körber and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 (Case R 353/2019 2), relating to opposition proceedings between KiK Textilien und Non-Food and FF Group Romania.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FF Group Romania SRL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Essential Export v EUIPO — Shenzhen Liouyi International Trading (TOTU)

(Case T-633/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative EU trade mark allegedly containing the word element ‘TOTU’ and coloured red and black - Earlier EU trade marks TOTTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 313/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Essential Export SA (San José, Costa Rica) (represented by: A.B. Padial Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shenzhen Liouyi International Trading Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 (Case R 362/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Essential Export and Shenzhen Liouyi International Trading.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Essential Export SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-370/19) (1)

(External relations - Technical cooperation - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 - Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications - Article 35(2) of Regulation 2018/1971 - Participation of regulatory authorities of third countries in that body - Participation of the national regulatory authority of Kosovo - Concept of third country - Error of law)

(2020/C 390/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Kellerbauer and T. Ramopoulos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (OJ 2019 C 115, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T-879/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

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: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 (Case R 1025/2019 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA to pay the costs relating to the present action.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.