ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-466/18) (1)

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

(2019/C 230/55)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1359/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

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

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Lupu v EUIPO — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)

(Case T-558/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Djili DS - Earlier national word mark DJILI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 213/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by: C.-R. Romițan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2018 (Case R 2391/2017-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Victor Lupu to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (Battistino)

(Case T-220/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Battistino - Earlier EU word mark BATTISTA - Declaration of partial invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 255/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: V. Franchini, F. Paesan and R. Bia, lawyers)

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, intervening before the General Court: Battista Nino Caffè Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 (Case R 400/2017-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Battista Nino Caffè and Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista.

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 22 January 2018 (Case R 400/2017-5);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO and Battista Nino Caffè Srl to bear the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Arçelik v EUIPO (MicroGarden)

(Case T-364/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MicroGarden - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 238/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arçelik AS (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: A. Franke and E. Flach, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2018 (Case R 163/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign MicroGarden as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Arçelik AS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2019 — W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen v EUIPO (Kordes’ Rose Monique)

(Case T-569/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Kordes’ Rose Monique - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark consisting of a plant variety denomination - Essential elements - Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 288/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co KG (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, Germany (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1929/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Kordes’ Rose Monique as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1929/2017-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Door hanger for vehicles)

(Case T-74/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a door hanger for vehicles - Earlier design - Proof of the disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2019/C 263/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Visi/one GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: H. Bourree and M. Bartz, acting as Agents)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: EasyFix GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Case R 1424/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between EasyFix and Visi/one.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Visi/one GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO — Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (mobile.ro)

(Case T-412/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark mobile.ro - Earlier national figurative mark mobile - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 305/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova and V. Grigorova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 111/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ and mobile.de.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders mobile.de GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Audimas v EUIPO — Audi (AUDIMAS)

(Case T-467/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark AUDIMAS - Earlier EU word mark AUDI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 305/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Audimas AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by G. Domkutė-Lukauskienė, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 (Case R 2425/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Audi and Audimas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Audimas AB to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (revolutionary air pulse technology)

(Case T-634/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark revolutionary air pulse technology - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübeck, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 (Case R 2721/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign revolutionary air pulse technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)

(Case T-744/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a discontinuous ellipse - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an ellipse - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 357/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 (Case R 692/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Oakley and Xuebo Ye.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 October 2018 (Case R 692/2018-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by Oakley, Inc.

(1) OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — UZ v Parliament

(Case T-47/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Psychological harassment - Disciplinary sanction - Downgrading by one grade and resetting of promotion points to zero - Rejection of the applicant’s request for assistance - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out - Requirement of impartiality - Right to be heard - Procedural irregularity - Consequences of the procedural irregularity)

(2019/C 406/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by V. Montebello-Demogeot and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, and subsequently by V. Montebello-Demogeot and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 27 February 2017 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero and, secondly, annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 27 February 2017 imposing on UZ the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders UZ and the Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE)

(Case T-678/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Application for protection of the international word mark GIUSTI WINE - Earlier national figurative mark DeGIUSTI - 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))

(2019/C 399/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società agricola Giusti Dal Col Srl (Nervesa della Battaglia, Italy) (represented by: M. Pizzigati and A. Mayr, lawyers)

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: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti and C. Spagnolo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 (Case R 1154/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between DMC and Società agricola Giusti Dal Col.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Società agricola Giusti Dal Col Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)

(Case T-491/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Meatlove - Earlier EU word mark carnilove - 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))

(2019/C 423/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vafo Praha s.r.o. (Chrášt’any, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Vojáček, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (Spiegelau, Germany) (represented by: F. Lichtnecker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vafo Praha and Ms Rutzinger-Kurpas.

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 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vafo Praha s.r.o.;

3. Orders Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas to bear her own costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 (Case R 2626/2017-2) in so far as, by that decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;
Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission

(Case T-432/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pensions - Pension scheme - Severance grant - Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Principle of good administration - Duty of care)

(2019/C 432/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Peeter Palo (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and D. Milanowska, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to pay the applicant the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), and annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Peeter Palo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)

(Case T-542/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark wanda films - Earlier EU word mark WANDA - Relative ground for refusal - Restriction of the application for registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 (Case R 829/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Dalian Wanda Group and Wanda Films.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopiderm)

(Case T-644/18) (1)

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

(2020/C 27/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and S. Fernandez Malvar, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 (Case R 1305/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. August Wolff and Faes Farma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Faes Farma, SA, including those necessarily incurred by Faes Farma, SA, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — WN v Parliament

(Case T-431/18) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Early termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Rights of defence - Conciliation procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Discrimination on grounds of sex - Maternity leave - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2020/C 10/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WN (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 28 September 2017 to terminate the applicant’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage she allegedly suffered as a result of the Parliament’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Vins el Cep v EUIPO — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien (MIM NATURA)

(Case T-589/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MIM NATURA - Earlier international word and figurative registrations MM and MM and earlier national word mark MUMM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 61/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vins el Cep, SL (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia, Spain) (represented by: J. Vázquez Salleras and G. Ferrer Gonzalvez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Eltville, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 (Case R 2270/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien and Vins el Cep, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vins el Cep, SL, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.