ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission

(Case T-672/19) (1)

(Public contracts - Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the EDF for a three-year period - Principle of good faith - Abuse of rights - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 148/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Companhia de Seguros Índico SA (Maputo, Mozambique) (represented by: R. Oliveira, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 July 2019 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general budget of the European Union and the European Development Fund (EDF) and from being selected for implementing Union funds, and publishing information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Companhia de Seguros Índico SA to pay the costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Worldwide Spirits Supply v EUIPO — Melfinco (CLEOPATRA QUEEN)

(Case T-870/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark CLEOPATRA QUEEN - Earlier national word mark CLEOPATRA MELFINCO - Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Declaration of invalidity)

(2022/C 95/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Demetriou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Melfinco S.A. (Schaan, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gioti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 (Case R 1820/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Melfinco and Worldwide Spirits Supply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders Melfinco S.A. to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case T-797/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Serious breach of the national provisions transposing Directive 2005/60/EC - Proportionality - Infringement of the national legislation on the governance of credit institutions - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 311/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Anglo Austrian AAB AG, formerly Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG (Vienna, Austria), Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV (Velp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ketzer and O. Behrends, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, E. Yoo and V. Hümpfner, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-AT 8 WHD-2019 0009 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 14 November 2019, by which the ECB withdrew AAB Bank’s authorisation to access the activities of a credit institution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Anglo Austrian AAB AG and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), including those of the application for interim measures.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

(Case T-242/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor, originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 - Determination of injury - Article 3(2), (3) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Price undercutting calculation - Causal link)

(2022/C 244/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere and J. Redelbach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2019 L 16, p. 108, and corrigendum OJ 2019 L 16 I, p. 1) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — PNB Banka v ECB

(Case T-275/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Powers of the ECB - Investigatory powers - On-site inspections - Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Decision of the ECB to conduct an inspection at the premises of a less significant credit institution - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Competence of the ECB - Obligation to state reasons - Elements capable of justifying an inspection - Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure - Request for a hearing without a statement of reasons)

(2023/C 35/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and V. Hümpfner, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB), notified by letter of 14 February 2019, to conduct an on-site inspection at the applicant’s premises.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);

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

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission

(Case T-603/19) (1)

(State aid - Coach and bus transport - Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Economic continuity - Procedural rights of interested parties - Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 432/19)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Hyvönen and N. Rosenlund, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Huttunen and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Nobina Oy (in Espoo, Finland), Nobina AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: J. Åkermarck and T. Kalliokoski, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1814 of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 — (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Finland for Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (OJ 2020 L 404, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures, as well as those incurred by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX)

(Case T-49/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ROBOX - Earlier EU word mark OROBOX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Independent subcategory of goods - Taking into consideration of a descriptive element - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 433/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rothenberger AG (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paper Point S.n.c di Daria Fabbroni e Simone Borghini (Arezzo, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 (Case R 210/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Paper Point and Rothenberger.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rothenberger AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-258/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 98/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

2. Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2020/373 to be maintained in respect of Mr Klymenko until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until the date of dismissal of that appeal;

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

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

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Representation of a scratch)

(Case T-35/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a claw-like scratch - Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing claw-like scratches - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 28/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nanjing aisiyou Clothing Co. Ltd (Nankin, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2019 (Case R 1104/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Nanjing aisiyou Clothing.

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 13 November 2019 (Case R 1104/2019-5), in so far as it concerns the rejection of the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE)

(Case T-175/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SANOLIE - Earlier national word mark SANODIN - 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))

(2021/C 217/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, 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: Sanolie (Istanbul, Turkey)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 (Case R 2405/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Sanolie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ LONDON)

(Case T-66/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 163/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, 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: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 884/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Berebene v EUIPO — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (GHISU)

(Case T-201/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GHISU - Earlier collective national figurative mark CHIANTI CLASSICO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark)

(2021/C 242/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Berebene Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Massimiani, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (Radda in Chianti, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona and F. Corona, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 (Case R 592/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Consorzio vino Chianti Classico and Berebene.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Berebene Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2021 — Capella v EUIPO — Cobi.bike (GOBI)

(Case T-286/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GOBI - Earlier EU figurative mark COBI - 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) - Relevant public)

(2021/C 242/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: R. Klenke, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cobi.bike GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 (Case 1685/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cobi.bike and Capella.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Capella EOOD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Cobi.bike GmbH.

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

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-266/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE - Earlier EU word mark CFA and earlier EU figurative mark CFA CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYST - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant public - Level of attention)

(2021/C 297/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Villani and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: G. Engels and W. May, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between CFA Institute and Global Chartered Controller Institute.

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 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Global Chartered Controller Institute SL, with the exception of the costs incurred by the latter before the Board of Appeal, which are reserved;

3. Orders CFA Institute to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Müller v EUIPO (TIER SHOP)

(Case T-535/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark TIER SHOP - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Article 72(4) and the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 263/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Müller GmbH & Co. KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: S. Mühlberger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 (Case R 2600/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign TIER SHOP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Müller GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.