ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-375/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark Blue — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue)

(Case T-375/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark Blue — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Klaudia Patricia Fenyves (residing in Hevesvezekény, Hungary) (represented by: I. Monteiro Alves, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 (Case R 1974/2016-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Blue as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Klaudia Patricia Fenyves to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case T-300/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 3000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)

(Case T-300/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 3000 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 (Case R 653/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools and Sata.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)

(Case T-694/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS - Earlier EU word mark AVORY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 301/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Link Entertainment, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

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: Sandra García-Sanjuan Machado (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 (Case R 1758/2016-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms García-Sanjuan Machado and Link Entertainment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Link Entertainment, SLU to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case T-556/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Staropilsen v EUIPO — Pivovary Staropramen (STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN — Earlier EU and national word marks STAROPRAMEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Staropilsen v EUIPO — Pivovary Staropramen (STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN)

(Case T-556/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN — Earlier EU and national word marks STAROPRAMEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Staropilsen s. r. o. (Plzeň, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Kodrasová, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pivovary Staropramen s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Vojáček, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2017 (Case R 236/2017-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Pivovary Staropramen and Staropilsen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Staropilsen s. r. o. to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale)

(Case T-184/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 392/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and P. Schneider, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: V. Mensing and A. Schifko, and subsequently by: V. Mensing and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 1115/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of four green squares on a scale as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR)

(Case T-797/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark STAR - No genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 352/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Star Television Productions Ltd (Tortola, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, 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: Marc Dorcel SA (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Soyer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 (Case R 1519/2016-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Star Television Productions and Marc Dorcel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Star Television Productions Ltd to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)

(Case T-435/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HIPANEMA - Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - Aesthetically complementary nature - 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 427/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intevener before the General Court: Hipanema (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Witukiewicz Sebban, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 629/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Hipanema.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grendene, SA, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Medisana v EUIPO (happy life)

(Case T-457/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark happy life - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 408/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medisana AG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 (Case R 1965/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign happy life as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Medisana AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission

(Case T-632/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal of access - Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)

(2018/C 427/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Éva Erdősi Galcsikné (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 1 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Éva Erdősi Galcsikné to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Lincoln Global v EUIPO (FLEXCUT)

(Case T-736/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark FLEXCUT - Absolute ground 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 427/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lincoln Global, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 (Case R 2225/2016-4), relating to the application for registration of the word sign FLEXCUT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lincoln Global, Inc., to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)

(Case T-63/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark Bingo VIVA! Slots - Earlier European Union figurative mark vive bingo - 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) - Subject matter of the dispute))

(2018/C 445/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Orenes (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, 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: Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2016 (Case R 453/2016-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Grupo Orenes and Akamon Entertainment Millenium.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grupo Orenes to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)

(Case T-164/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WILD PINK - Earlier EU and national word marks PINK LADY - Earlier EU figurative marks Pink Lady - 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) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 436/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Le Pontet, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters and H. Abraham, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pink Lady America LLC (Yakima, Washington, United States) (represented initially by: R. Manno and S. Travaglio, and subsequently by R. Manno, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2017 (Case R 87/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion, on the one hand, and Pink Lady America, on the other.

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 10 January 2017 (Case R 87/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

3. Orders Pink Lady America LLC to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)

(Case T-790/17) (1)

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

(2019/C 25/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: St. Andrews Links Ltd (St Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hattier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2017 (Case R 92/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ST ANDREWS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders St. Andrews Links Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — RQ v Commission

(Case T-29/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Director-General of OLAF - Decision waiving the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings - Lis pendens - Act adversely affecting a person - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of assistance and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence)

(2019/C 4/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RQ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings and, so far as necessary, of Commission Decision Ares(2016) 5814495 of 5 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the first decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive RQ’s immunity from legal proceedings;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-31/17) (1)

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific measures in favour of the outermost regions - Article 12(c) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 - Technical assistance - Inspection measures - Procedural guarantees - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 44/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and A. Tavares de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 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 2016 L 312, p. 26), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Portuguese Republic the amounts of EUR 460 202,73and of EUR 200 000 (Budget item 6701).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-703/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi - Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI - 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)))

(2019/C 44/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2924/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

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 3 August 2017 (Case R 2924/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;

3. Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — De Loecker v EEAS

(Case T-537/17) (1)

((Civil service - EEAS - Temporary agents - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Right to be heard - Liability))

(2019/C 82/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially J. N. Louis and N. de Montigny, then J. N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of 270 TFEU and seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 10 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance made under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 10 October 2016 rejecting Mr Stéphane De Loecker request for assistance made under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.