ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/23

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)

(Case T-912/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark RROFA - Prior EU word mark ROFA - 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)))

(2018/C 042/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: N. Köster, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 2392/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mobotec and RRTec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders RRTec sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/23

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

(Case T-120/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Burlington - Earlier national word marks BURLINGTON and BURLINGTON ARCADE - Earlier EU and national figurative marks BURLINGTON ARCADE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 94/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tulliallan Burlington and Burlington Fashion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/32

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)

(Case T-68/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Position mark - Genuine use of the mark - Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 072/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, 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: Munich, SL (Capellades, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. del Mar Guix Vilanova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 (Case R 2345/2014-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Deichman and Munich.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/16

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO (GEO)

(Case T-280/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark GEO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 042/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GeoClimaDesign AG (Fürstenwalde/Spree, Germany) (represented by: B. Lanz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: GEO Gesellschaft für Energie und Oekologie GmbH (Langenhorn, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2016 (Case R 1679/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between GEO and GeoClimaDesign.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GeoClimaDesign AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/34

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)

(Case T-457/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union word mark Le Coq de France - Earlier national figurative mark le coq - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 2017/1001]))

(2018/C 104/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Schwamm & Cie. mbH (Saarbrucken, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2016 (Case R 1786/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Schwamm & Cie. And Aldi Einkauf.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/20

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO

(Case T-367/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE - Earlier EU trade mark HOLY - 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)))

(2018/C 094/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gerd Brunner (Moosthenning, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz and D. Oerter, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between CBM and Mr Brunner.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gerd Brunner to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/46

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

(Case T-665/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark €$ - Absolute grounds 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) - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/60)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 (Case R 2086/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the sign €$ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2016 (Case R 2086/2015-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/17

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2018 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)

(Case T-445/16) (1)

((Plant variety rights - Application for Community plant variety rights for the plant variety Gala Schnico - Technical examination - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Uniformity - Article 8 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Complementary examination - Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 - Equal treatment - Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94))

(2018/C 123/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 22 April 2016 (Case A 005/2014) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right in respect of the plant variety Gala Schnico.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Schniga GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Case T-190/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Azarov v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Misuse of power — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Manifest error of assessment)

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Azarov v Council

(Case T-190/16) ( 1 )

‛(Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Misuse of power — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Manifest error of assessment)’

Parties

Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/27

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Naviera Armas v Commission

(Case T-108/16) (1)

((State aid - Conditions of use of the Puerto Las Nieves port infrastructure by a shipping company - Exclusive use of infrastructures financed by public funds, without a concession contract - Partial exoneration of payment of port dues - Complaint lodged by a competitor - Decision finding no State aid at the end of the preliminary investigation procedure - Serious difficulties in the examination of the measures concerned - Developments in the situation during the administrative procedure - Concept of advantage granted by means of State resources - Errors of assessment of the facts and errors of law - Decision of a national court suspending the effects of a tendering procedure - Requirement of diligent and impartial examination of the complaint))

(2018/C 152/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naviera Armas, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, G. Luengo and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Fred Olsen, SA (Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain) (represented by: F. Marín Riaño, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 8655 final of 8 December 2015 concerning State aid SA.36628 (2015/NN) (ex 2013/CP) — Spain — Fred Olsen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 8655 final of 8 December 2015 concerning State aid SA.36628 (2015/NN) (ex 2013/CP) — Spain — Fred Olsen in so far as it is found therein that, at the end of the preliminary investigation procedure, the exclusive use of the Puerto de Las Nieves port infrastructure by Fred Olsen, SA had not entailed any State aid to that company;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Naviera Armas, SA to bear 25 % of its own costs, with the remainder to be paid by the European Commission;

4. Orders the Commission and Fred Olsen to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Case T-712/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Air transport market — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market subject to certain commitments — Request for a waiver of part of the obligations forming the subject matter of the commitments — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Misuse of powers)

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-712/16) ( 1 )

‛(Competition — Concentrations — Air transport market — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market subject to certain commitments — Request for a waiver of part of the obligations forming the subject matter of the commitments — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Misuse of powers)’

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, H. Leupold and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4964 final of 25 July 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for a waiver of certain commitments rendered binding by the Commission Decision of 4 July 2005 approving the merger in Case COMP/M.3770 –– Lufthansa/Swiss.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls, in so far as it concerns the Zurich-Stockholm route, Commission Decision C(2016) 4964 final of 25 July 2016 rejecting Deutsche Lufthansa AG’s request for a waiver of certain commitments rendered binding by the Commission decision of 4 July 2005 approving the merger in Case COMP/M.3770 –– Lufthansa/Swiss;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Case T-468/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages — Partial refusal of access — Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist — Presumption of lawfulness — Error of law — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission

(Case T-468/16) ( 1 )

‛(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages — Partial refusal of access — Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist — Presumption of lawfulness — Error of law — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Applicant: Verein Deutsche Sprache eV (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: W. Ehrhardt, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3714 final of 10 June 2016 relating to a request for access, made by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Verein Deutsche Sprache eV to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Joined Cases T-568/16 and T-599/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2018 — Spagnolli and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Death of a spouse who was an official — Persons entitled under the deceased official — Survivor’s pension — Orphan’s pension — Change of post of the official, surviving spouse — Adaptation of salary — Method of calculation of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions — Article 81a of the Staff Regulations — Notice of modification of pension entitlements — An act affecting a person adversely within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Recovery of undue payments — Conditions — Claim for compensation for material and non-material damage)

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2018 — Spagnolli and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-568/16 and T-599/16) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Officials — Death of a spouse who was an official — Persons entitled under the deceased official — Survivor’s pension — Orphan’s pension — Change of post of the official, surviving spouse — Adaptation of salary — Method of calculation of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions — Article 81a of the Staff Regulations — Notice of modification of pension entitlements — An act affecting a person adversely within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Recovery of undue payments — Conditions — Claim for compensation for material and non-material damage)’

Parties

Applicants: Alberto Spagnolli (Parma, Italy), Francesco Spagnolli (Parma), Maria Alice Spagnolli (Parma) and Bianca Maria Elena Spagnolli (Parma) (represented by: C. Cortese and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for, in Case T-568/16, annulment of Notice of modification No 3 PMO/04/LM/2015/ARES of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 6 February 2015 containing the statement of the new amounts of the survivor’s and orphan’s pensions granted to the applicants and, in Case T-599/16, firstly, annulment of Decision PMO/04/LM/2015/ARES/3406787 of the PMO of 17 August 2015 for recovery of amounts paid unduly to the applicants by way of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions and, secondly, for compensation for the losses allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action in Case T-568/16;

2. In Case T-599/16, annuls Decision PMO/04/LM/2015/ARES/3406787 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of the Commission of 17 August 2015 ordering recovery of the amounts paid unduly to the applicants by way of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions and dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs in each case.

( 1 ) OJ 2016 C 111, p. 43 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-140/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-160/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption granted by the Netherlands to six Dutch public seaports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission

(Case T-160/16) ( 1 )

‛(State aid — Corporate tax exemption granted by the Netherlands to six Dutch public seaports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)’

Parties

Applicants: Groningen Seaports NV (Delfzijl, Netherlands) and the 5 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and I. Kieft, and subsequently by A. Kleinhout and C. Zois, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by S. Noë, B. Stromsky and J.-F. Brakeland, and subsequently by S. Noë and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/634 of 21 January 2016 on aid measure SA.25338 (2014/C) (ex E 3/2008 and ex CP 115/2004) implemented by the Netherlands — Corporate tax exemption for public undertakings (OJ 2016 L 113, p. 148).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Grants Havenbedrijf Moerdijk NV leave to replace Havenschap Moerdijk as applicant;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Groningen Seaports NV and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

4. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.