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

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)

(Case T-766/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark STONES - Declaration of revocation in part - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use in the European Union - Article 19(1) and Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2022/C 198/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PrenzMarien GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: H.-M. Elo and E. Hodge, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 (Case R 274/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between PrenzMarien and Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PrenzMarien GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Degode- v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea)

(Case T-715/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Skinovea - Earlier national word mark SKINOREN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Degode-Dermago Development GmbH (Strausberg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leo Pharma A/S (Ballerup, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2020 (Case R 337/2020 5) relating to opposition proceedings between Leo Pharma and Degode-Dermago Development.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Degode-Dermago Development GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission (TAROM; Rescue Aid)

(Case T-718/20) (1)

(State aid - Air transport - Support measure taken by Romania - Rescue aid to TAROM - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Status as a party concerned - Safeguarding of procedural rights - Admissibility - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty - Measure aiming to prevent social hardship or to address market failure - ‘One time, last time’ principle - Effect of earlier aid granted before Romania’s accession to the European Union - Serious difficulties - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 266/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Bottka and I. Barcew, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (OJ 2020 C 310, p. 3), by which the European Commission, first, did not raise any objections to an aid measure granted by Romania to the Compania Nationala de Transporturi Aeriene Romane ‘TAROM SA’ (‘TAROM’) consisting of a loan in the amount of 175 952 000 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 36 660 000), repayable at the end of a period of six months, and, second, declared that aid to be compatible with the internal market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-292/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 207/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas, P. Mahnič, S. Van Overmeire and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)

(Case T-337/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Board of Appeal decision confirming the revocation of an earlier decision - Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Request for conversion into a national trade mark application - Ground precluding conversion - Non-use of the EU trade mark - Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2022/C 311/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Jennings, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 March 2020 (Case R 187/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hochmann Marketing GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan v Commission

(Case T-144/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Review investigation - Circumvention - Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Related companies - Procedural obligations - Article 5(10) and (11) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 294/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd (Bobai, China) (represented by: J. Cornelis and T. Zuber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and M. Gustafsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2131 of 28 November 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2019 L 321, p. 139).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-217/20) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Rural Development - Key controls - Flat-rate financial corrections - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration)

(2022/C 418/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A.-E. Vasilopoulou and E.-E. Krompa, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. Aquilina and M. Kaduczak, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Hellenic Republic seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/201 of 12 February 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 42, p. 17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts v Commission

(Case T-278/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of steel road wheels originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty - Articles 17(4), 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Lack of cooperation - Insufficient information provided to the Commission)

(2022/C 340/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China) and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 of 3 March 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2020 L 65, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture Co. Ltd and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2022 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-469/20) (1)

(State aid - Netherlands law prohibiting the use of coal for the production of electricity - Anticipated closure of a coal-powered power plant - Grant of compensation - Decision not to raise objections - Decision declaring the compensation compatible with the internal market - No express classification as ‘State aid’ - Action for annulment - Act open to challenge - Admissibility - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Legal certainty)

(2023/C 24/48)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. de Ree and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of the Netherlands seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 2998 final of 12 May 2020 on State aid SA.54537 (2020/NN) — Netherlands, Prohibition of coal for the production of electricity in the Netherlands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 2998 final of 12 May 2020 on State aid SA.54537 (2020/NN) — Netherlands, Prohibition of coal for the production of electricity in the Netherlands;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Lenovo Global Technology Belgium v Joint Undertaking EuroHPC

(Case T-717/20) (1)

(Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Acquisition, delivery, installation and maintenance of the Leonardo Supercomputer for the hosting entity Cineca - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 482/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lenovo Global Technology Belgium BV (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by S. Sakellariou, G. Forwood and F. Abou Zeid, lawyers)

Defendant: European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (represented by P.-E. Partsch and F. Dewald, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by L. André, M. Ilkova, P.-J. Loewenthal, C. Vollrath and T. Van Noyen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision Ares(2020)5103538 of the European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC) of 29 September 2020 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant concerning the third lot in call for tenders SMART 2019/1084 relating to the acquisition, delivery, installation and maintenance of the Leonardo Supercomputer for the hosting entity Cineca and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lenovo Global Technology Belgium BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC);

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

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Rotondaro v EUIPO — Pollini (COLLINI)

(Case T-69/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark COLLINI - Earlier EU and national word marks POLLINI and STUDIO POLLINI - 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))

(2022/C 73/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carmine Rotondaro (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pollini SpA (Gatteo, Italy) (represented by: F. Sanna, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2020 (Case R 2518/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pollini and Mr Rotondaro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Carmine Rotondaro to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяин)

(Case T-184/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Хозяин - Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany) (represented by: K. Borstel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 (Case R 2729/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Schuju and Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)

(Case T-202/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte - Earlier EU word mark TRILUX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 128/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Säckingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis and F. Hauck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos LTDA (Pirassununga, Brazil) (represented by: J. Blum, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 818/2020 4) relating to opposition proceedings between VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos and Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — PO v Commission

(Case T-36/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 1d(1) and (4) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable accommodation - Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability - Directive 2000/78/EC - Obligation to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Responsibility - Material and non-material damage)

(2022/C 207/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PO (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 29 April 2020, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 as well as the decision of the appointing authority of 14 October 2020 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the harm he allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO …?)

(Case T-196/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SO …? - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J. P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 (Case R 1235/2020 4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lea Nature Services and Debonair Trading Internacional.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lea Nature Services to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-105/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Célestin Kanyama to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Moio v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (moio.care)

(Case T-276/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark moio.care - Earlier EU word mark Molicare - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 237/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Moio GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: E. Grande García, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2021 (Case R 1034/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann and Moio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Moio GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.