do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-233/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 1841 — Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Taking into account of additional evidence — Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01002201.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/22





Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841)
(Case T-233/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark 1841 - Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Taking into account of additional evidence - Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 402/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2015 (Case R 805/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Armand Thiery and Cofra Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cofra Holding AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred, in connection with the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Armand Thiery SAS.






(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
Case T-841/16: Order of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Alex v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Financing of an urban development project — Complaint — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision of the Commission finding no State aid — Action challenging the merits of the Commission’s decision — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Aquitaine, European Regional Development Fund, France, State aid, control of State aid, reimbursement of aid, town-planning scheme








C_2017402EN.01003601.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/36





Order of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Alex v Commission
(Case T-841/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Financing of an urban development project - Complaint - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision of the Commission finding no State aid - Action challenging the merits of the Commission’s decision - No individual concern - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 402/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alex SCI (Bayonne, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K Herrmann and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting a complaint relating to State aid allegedly unlawfully granted by the French Republic to the Côte-Basque-Adour Conurbation Authority (SA.44409).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the French Republic’s application for leave to intervene.










3.


Alex SCI shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The French Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case T-694/17: Action brought on 10 October 2017 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, registered trade mark, sales promotion, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01005501.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/55





Action brought on 10 October 2017 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)
(Case T-694/17)
(2017/C 402/72)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Link Entertainment, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandra García-Sanjuan Machado (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ — European Union trade mark No 12 672 853

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in Case R 1758/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and find that the cancellation of EU trade mark No 12 672 853 ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ for Classes 35 and 41 is unfounded; and










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal and the invalidity proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8554 — CIC/Logicor Business) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, storage








C_2017339EN.01000101.xml










10.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8554 — CIC/Logicor Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 339/01)
On 18 September 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8554. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8604 — Xella International/Ursa) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, credit, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real property








C_2017339EN.01000201.xml










10.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8604 — Xella International/Ursa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 339/03)
On 4 October 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8604. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-640/16 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2017 — Greenpeace Energy eG v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Action for annulment — Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Locus standi — Appellant not individually concerned)
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: South West (England), State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, investment aid, nuclear energy, nuclear power station








C_2017424EN.01001601.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/16





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2017 — Greenpeace Energy eG v European Commission
(Case C-640/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Action for annulment - Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Locus standi - Appellant not individually concerned))
(2017/C 424/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Greenpeace Energy eG (represented by: D. Fouquet, J. Nysten and S. Michaels, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck-Putz, P. Němečková and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the Commission: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: D. Robertson, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Greenpeace Energy eG shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.