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

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Workplace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis Holding (UMA WORKSPACE)

(Case T-506/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark UMA WORKSPACE - Earlier EU figurative mark and earlier UK figurative and word marks WORKSPACE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Workplace Group plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Hine, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Technopolis Holding Oyj (Oulu, Finland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 (Case R 1910/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Workspace Group and Technopolis Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Workspace Group plc to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 –Zubedi v Council

(Case T-186/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment)

(2020/C 339/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Zubedi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M. Lester, QC, and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Limonet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Khaled Zubedi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Scorify v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)

(Case T-328/19) (1)

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

(2020/C 313/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scorify UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and C. de Callataÿ, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 (Case R 1639/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Scor and Scorisk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Scorify UAB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Clouds Sky v EUIPOEUIPO — The Cloud Networks (Wi-Fi Powered by The Cloud)

(Case T-738/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Wi-Fi Powered by The Cloud - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2020/C 390/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clouds Sky GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The Cloud Networks Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2019 (Case R 696/2019-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Clouds Sky and The Cloud Networks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Clouds Sky GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Glaxo Group Ltd v EUIPO (Shade of the colour purple)

(Case T-187/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of the colour purple - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and R. Jacob, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 (Case R 1870/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a shade of the colour purple as an EU trade mark:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Glaxo Group Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Broughton v Eurojust

(Case T-87/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Deferment of advancement to a higher step for a period of six months - Annulment of reclassification in the higher grade - Ability to work in a third language - Administrative investigation - Duty to act in good faith - Impartiality - Rights of the defence - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 11 and 12 of the Staff Regulations)

(2020/C 423/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Jon Broughton (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) (represented by: J. Jooma and A. Terstegen-Verhaag, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, in essence, first, annulment of the decisions of 4 May 2018 by which Eurojust deferred the applicant’s advancement to a higher step for a period of six months, held that French was his third language, annulled his reclassification from grade AD 9 to AD 10, which occurred in 2012, and proceeded to recover the amounts received since that year on account of that reclassification, second, a declaration that French must be considered to be the applicant’s second language and Dutch his third language, third, a declaration that the recovery of the amounts received by the applicant as a result of his reclassification in grade was unlawful and that the amounts recovered by Eurojust must be reimbursed to the applicant and, fourth, a declaration that Eurojust must restore the applicant’s legal position to what it was previously.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jon Broughton to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust).

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

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T-402/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Freude an Farbe - Earlier EU figurative mark Glemadur Freude an Farbe - 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))

(2020/C 399/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 (Case R 1434/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Synthesa Chemie and Brillux.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)

(Case T-664/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 9/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, V.J. Ruzek, and K. Zajfert, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Co. and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Allergan Holdings France to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK)

(Case T-607/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Principles of equal treatment and legality)

(2020/C 433/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 (Case R 830/2019-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign FAKE DUCK as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Ace of spades v EUIPO — Krupp and Borrmann (JC JEAN CALL Champagne ROSÉ)

(Case T-620/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark JC JEAN CALL Champagne ROSÉ - Earlier three-dimensional EU trade marks - Relative grounds 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) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 35/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany), Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2019 (Case R 1/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ace of spades Holdings and Messrs Krupp and Borrmann.

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 26 June 2019 (Case R 1/2019-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Ace of spades Holdings LLC and rejected the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-574/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2021/C 28/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: A. Odle and R. Palijama, lawyers, and J. St Ville, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2019 (Case R 1002/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International and, on the other, Tinnus Enterprises.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Multi-Service v Commission

(Case T-873/19) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision annulling the registration of an undertaking - Failure to provide the required information)

(2021/C 72/35)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Multi-Service S.A. (Kwidzyn, Poland) (represented by: P. Jankowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker, M. Jáuregui Gómez and M. Rynkowski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2019) 6103796 of 3 October 2019, by which the Commission annulled the applicant’s registration in the registry established and managed by the Commission pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Multi-Service S.A. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 17 January 2019 which set a ceiling for reimbursement of EUR 3 100 for the rental of medical equipment for the period from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2024 and the decision of the Commission of 13 August 2019 which dismissed the complaint lodged against that decision;
Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

(Case T-110/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Obligation to state reasons - 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 - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 98/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, 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: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile, S. Van Overmeire and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 134, p. 47) and, second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018 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 2018 L 314, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set)

(Case T-515/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a building block from a toy building set - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Features of appearance of a product to be necessarily reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the interconnection with other products - Designs whose purpose is to allow multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system - Article 8(1) to (3) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2021/C 217/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter and L. E. Appel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Delta Sport Handelskontor and Lego.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO and Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Lego A/S.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — FI v Commission

(Case T-694/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 163/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FI (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to FI;

2. Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by FI;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Valvis Holding (AC AQUA AC)

(Case T-638/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark AC AQUA AC - Earlier three-dimensional EU and national trade marks VODAVODA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 252/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček and C. Saettel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Valvis Holding SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: D. Bogdan, G. Bozocea and M. Stănescu, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 (Case R 649/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Stars & Sons and Valvis Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Valvis Holding SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.