do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-682/17: Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)
Date: 2017-10-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01005202.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/52





Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)
(Case T-682/17)
(2017/C 402/69)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien’ — EU trade mark No 8 216 343

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2085/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;










—


make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;










—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-683/17: Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)
Date: 2017-10-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01005301.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/53





Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)
(Case T-683/17)
(2017/C 402/70)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ — EU trade mark No 13 118 724

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2086/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;










—


make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;










—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-681/17: Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)
Date: 2017-10-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, cosmetic product, household article, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01005201.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/52





Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)
(Case T-681/17)
(2017/C 402/68)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Khadi’ — EU trade mark No 10 479 954

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2017 in Case R 2083/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;










—


make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;










—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(i) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-74/17: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO (Shaken, not stirred)
Date: 2017-10-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01005502.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/55





Order of the General Court of 2 October 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO (Shaken, not stirred)
(Case T-74/17) (1)

(2017/C 402/73)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-577/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 October 2017 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl
Date: 2017-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2018022EN.01001802.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 October 2017 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl
(Case C-577/17)
(2018/C 022/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Parties involved in the proceedings: Clinton Osas Alake alias Klenti Solim, Cynthia Nomamidobo and Prince Nomamidobo

Questions referred







1.


Can the requested Member State — and the Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of the Dublin III Regulation (1) — effectively accept the take back request under Article 23(1) of the Dublin III Regulation even though the time limit for replying specified in Article 25(1) of that regulation has already passed and the requested Member State had previously refused the take back request within the time limit and also negatively replied within the time limit to the request for re-examination based on Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation? (2)

If the first question is to be answered in the negative:
As a consequence of the refusal, communicated within the prescribed period, of the take back request by the Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of the Dublin III Regulation, must the requesting Member State in which the new application was lodged examine that application in order to ensure that the application is examined by a Member State in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Dublin III Regulation?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3).
Case T-676/17: Action brought on 2 October 2017 — UN v Commission
Date: 2017-10-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, right to justice, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017402EN.01005101.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/51





Action brought on 2 October 2017 — UN v Commission
(Case T-676/17)
(2017/C 402/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: UN (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the assessment of the applicant for 2015 according to assessment report No 260603 in its final version of 1 December 2015 (in the version which that assessment decision most recently maintained through the rejection of the applicant’s complaint on 21 June 2017);










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant an appropriate sum, in an amount to be determined by the Court, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.








1.


First plea in law: manifest errors of assessment by the Commission, which are partially based on incorrect facts and on infringements of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).












2.


Second plea in law: infringement by the Commission of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).