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

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Germanwings v Commission

(Case T-716/17) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Aid granted by Italy in favour of Sardinian airports - Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Imputability to the State - Beneficiaries - Advantage for co-contracting airlines - Market economy operator principle - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Obligation to state reasons - Aid scheme - De minimis aid - Recovery)

(2020/C 215/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA 33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Germanwings GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure)

(Case T-601/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Second sentence of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 432/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rubik’s Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

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: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2017 (Case R 452/2017-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Simba Toys and Rubik’s Brand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rubik’s Brand Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)

(Case T-584/17 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz - Earlier national word marks PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Referral)

(2021/C 242/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (Wołomin, Poland) (represented by: J. Skołuda, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bolton Cile España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 (Case R 1933/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bolton Cile España and Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — United Parcel Service v Commission

(Case T-834/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Competition - Markets for international express small package delivery services in the EEA - Concentration - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court - Rights of the defence - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Causal link)

(2022/C 171/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, F. Hoseinian, W. Knibbeler, A. Pliego Selie and F. Roscam Abbing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, P. Berghe, M. Farley and R. Leupold Henning, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawfulness of Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by United Parcel Service, Inc.;

3. Orders United Parcel Service to bear two thirds of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T-268/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2022/C 2/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 632462, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 101 370,94, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 7 February 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;

2. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — SC v Eulex Kosovo

(Case T-242/17 RENV) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Common foreign and security policy - Civil international staff of EU international missions - Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts - Internal competition - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Admissibility - Procedure by default)

(2022/C 482/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SC (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer)

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: L.-G. Wigemark, acting as Agent, and by E. Raoult, lawyer)

Re:

By her action based on Articles 272 and 268 TFEU, the applicant asks the General Court, in essence, after finding, first, that Eulex Kosovo had failed to fulfil its contractual and non-contractual obligations and, secondly, that the decision not to accept her application following the internal competition which took place on 19 July 2016 for the post of prosecutor and the decision not to renew her final employment contract which resulted from that decision are unlawful, to order Eulex Kosovo to compensate her for the material and non-material damage she allegedly suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders Eulex Kosovo to pay SC compensation in respect of the material damage suffered, equivalent to 19 months’ gross salary, to which the daily subsistence allowance and the salary increase should be added, to correspond to the situation in which the final employment contract was renewed until 14 June 2018, together with compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed on ex æquo et bono at EUR 50 000;

2. Orders Eulex Kosovo to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings in Case C-730/18 P and Case T-242/17.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)

(Case T-181/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 (Case R 845/2017-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign TAKE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CH v Parliament

(Case T-83/18) (1)

((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Right to be heard - Principle of audi alteram partem - Refusal to disclose the opinion of the Advisory Committee and the minutes of the hearing of witnesses - Refusal of the defendant institution to comply with a measure of inquiry of the General Court))

(2019/C 82/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CH (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 20 March 2017 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 22 December 2011 and, second, compensation for the loss she has allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2017, by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by CH on 22 December 2011;

2. Orders the Parliament to pay CH, in respect of non-material harm suffered, an amount of EUR 8 500;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2019 –Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne)

(Case T-107/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dienne - Earlier EU figurative mark ENNE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 139/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Erkan Aytekin (Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dienne Salotti Srl (Altamura, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 1444/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Aytekin and Dienne Salotti.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Erkan Aytekin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred, in connection with the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Dienne Salotti Srl.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)

(Case T-79/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU mark ARBET - Prior national word mark BORBET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Arif Oliver Bekat (Esslingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Eberl, D. Hanf and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Borbet GmbH (Hallenberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2017 (Case R 1117/2017-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Borbet and Mr Bekat.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Arif Oliver Bekat to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU figurative marks SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA - Earlier national word mark MULTIPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 213/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States) (represented by: K. Neefs and S. Cubitt, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sona Nutrition and Solgar Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4);

3. Orders EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc. to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Sona Nutrition Ltd.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Novartis v EUIPO (SMARTSURFACE)

(Case T-463/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SMARTSURFACE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 148/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2018 (Case R 1765/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SMARTSURFACE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR)

(Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Bad faith)

(2019/C 230/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco and A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner, E. Preston, Solicitors, and P. Roberts, QC)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 and of 8 November 2017 (Cases R 2370/2016-2 and R 2371/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Annco and Holzer y Cia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Holzer y Cia, SA de CV to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Annco, Inc.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-465/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1358/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

(Case T-75/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 - Genuine use of the mark - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 263/48)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: MPM-Quality v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Matoušek, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2017 (Case R 556/2017-4) relating to revocation proceedings between MPM-QUALITY and ELTON hodinářská.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MPM-QUALITY v.o.s. to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders ELTON hodinářská, a.s. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 122, 26.3.2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

(Case T-273/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary procedure - Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service - Administrative investigation - Mandate given to IDOC - Principle of impartiality - Principle of good administration - Rights of the defence - Disciplinary procedure - Principle of equality of arms - Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand - Proportionality - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 255/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Commission decision of 6 July 2017 imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant under Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, and, where appropriate, of the decision of 31 January 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.