ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/38

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017 — Hanso Holding v EUIPO (REAL)

(Case T-798/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark REAL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001]))

(2018/C 022/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hanso Holding AS (Tromsø, Norway) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 (Case R 2405/2015-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign REAL as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hanso Holding AS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/21

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T-692/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Article 47(b) of the CEOS - Annulment of early termination decision - Article 266 TFEU - Compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal - Adoption of new early termination decision - Retroactive effect))

(2018/C 042/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, the annulment, first, of the ECDC decision of 2 December 2015 terminating, with retroactive effect as from 30 April 2012, the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff and, secondly, of the ECDC decision of 27 June 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that termination decision and, on the other hand, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CJ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/24

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)

(Case T-122/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Burlington - Earlier national word marks BURLINGTON and BURLINGTON ARCADE - Earlier EU and national figurative marks BURLINGTON ARCADE - 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) - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 2409/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tulliallan Burlington and Burlington Fashion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/22

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)

(Case T-765/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL (Puerto del Rosario, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and J. García Murillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/34

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)

(Case T-398/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS - Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 072/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: J. Schmitt, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Kusturovic, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hasmik Nersesyan (Borgloon, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Starbucks Corp. and Ms Hasmik Nersesyan.

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 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/17

Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER)

(Case T-727/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Decision of a Board of Appeal revoking an earlier decision - Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure))

(2018/C 123/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV)), relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Repower AG and repowermap.org.

(1) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/32

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Ranocchia v ERCEA

(Case T-208/16) (1)

((Research and technological development - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Horizon 2020 - Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant - Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts - Misuse of powers - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 104/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented initially by: E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and L. Moreau, and subsequently by E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of (i) ERCEA Decision Ares(2016) 1020667 of 26 February 2016, dismissing the applicant’s application for a review of the decision refusing to subsidise research proposal No 682937, entitled ‘PHercSchools2 — The Hellenistic Philosophical Schools in the Herculaneum Papyri’, (ii) ERCEA Decision Ares(2015) 5922529 of 17 December 2015, refusing to subsidise that research proposal, and (iii) any prior, subsequent or connected measure linked to those decisions, in particular the list of projects approved for the ‘ERC Consolidator Grant’ support programme made public by the ERCEA’s press release of 12 February 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Graziano Ranocchia to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/28

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission

(Case T-211/16) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd - Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 - Non-imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 3(2), (3) and (5) and Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Sampling - No material injury - Manifest error of assessment - Determination of injury - Profitability of the Union industry))

(2018/C 152/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy), Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Distillerie Mazzari SpA (Sant’Agata sul Santerno, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy) (represented by: A. Bochon, lawyer, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 of 9 February 2016 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd (OJ 2016 L 33, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/43

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

(Case T-438/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CIPRIANI - Earlier EU word mark HOTEL CIPRIANI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy) (represented initially by P. Cantrill, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister, and subsequently by B. Brandreth, A. Poulter and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 (Case R 1889/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hotel Cipriani and Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
Case T-756/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a trellis — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Articles 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis)

(Case T-756/16) ( 1 )

‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a trellis — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Articles 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)’

Parties

Applicant: Euro Castor Green (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Netlon France (Saint-Saulve, France) (represented by: C. Berto, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 754/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Netlon France and Euro Castor Green.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Euro Castor Green to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/25

Judgment of the General Court of 17 April 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO (BOBO cornet)

(Case T-648/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BOBO cornet - Prior EU figurative mark OZMO cornet - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 190/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2016 (Case R 906/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret and Ms Zaharieva.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case T-701/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Commission v AV (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Medical examination — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment — Not eligible for the invalidity allowance — Enforcement of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal setting aside the initial decision)

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Commission v AV

(Case T-701/16 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Medical examination — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment — Not eligible for the invalidity allowance — Enforcement of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal setting aside the initial decision)’

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Berardis-Kayser, C. Ehrbar and T. Bohr, and subsequently by C. Ehrbar and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: AV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, AV v Commission (F-91/15, EU:F:2016:170), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, AV v Commission (F-91/15);

2. Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

3. Reserves costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case T-653/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Malta v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the Commission — Documents originating from a Member State — Documents exchanged pursuant to the control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Article 113 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 — Public access following a request made by a non-governmental organisation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Sincere cooperation — Choice of legal basis)

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Malta v Commission

(Case T-653/16) ( 1 )

‛(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the Commission — Documents originating from a Member State — Documents exchanged pursuant to the control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Article 113 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 — Public access following a request made by a non-governmental organisation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Sincere cooperation — Choice of legal basis)’

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 13 July 2016 on a confirmatory application by Greenpeace for access to documents relating to an allegedly irregular shipment of live bluefin tuna from Tunisia to a fish farm located in Malta, in so far as it grants Greenpeace access to documents originating from the Maltese authorities.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Commission of 13 July 2016 on a confirmatory application by Greenpeace for access to documents relating to an allegedly irregular shipment of live bluefin tuna from Tunisia to Malta in so far as it grants Greenpeace access to the documents listed in Annex B to that decision under Nos 112 to 230;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those relating to the interim measures.

( 1 ) OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
Case T-227/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a foot mat — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Proof of saturation of the state of the art — No different overall impression — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat)

(Case T-227/16) ( 1 )

‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a foot mat — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Proof of saturation of the state of the art — No different overall impression — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)’

Parties

Applicant: Haverkamp IP GmbH (Kindberg, Austria), authorised to replace Reinhard Haverkamp (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 (Case R 2618/2014-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Sissel and Mr Haverkamp

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Haverkamp IP GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Case T-597/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — OW v EASA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Assignment in the interest of the service — Transfer to a new post — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Right to a fair hearing — Misuse of powers)

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — OW v EASA

(Case T-597/16) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Assignment in the interest of the service — Transfer to a new post — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Right to a fair hearing — Misuse of powers)’

Parties

Applicant: OW (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: initially F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, and subsequently by A Haug, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of Decision 2015/155/ED dated 20 July 2015, by which the Executive Director of EASA assigned the applicant to a new post.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders OW to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-27/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).