do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-681/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2017 — slewo // schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, packaging, termination of a contract








C_2018112EN.01001001.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2017 — slewo // schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski
(Case C-681/17)
(2018/C 112/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: slewo // schlafen leben wohnen GmbH

Respondent: Sascha Ledowski

Questions referred

For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 16(e) and — if relevant — Article 6(1)(k) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) the following questions shall be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU:






1.


Should Article 16(e) of the Consumer Rights Directive be interpreted as meaning that the goods referred to there which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons include goods (such as, for example, mattresses) which, although when used as intended may come into direct contact with the human body, can nevertheless be made saleable again by means of suitable (cleaning) measures by the trader?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






a)


What requirements must the packaging of goods satisfy for it to be considered that sealing within the meaning of Article 16(e) of the Consumer Rights Directive exists?
and










b)


Does the information that the trader has to give pursuant to Article 6(1)(k) of the Consumer Rights Directive before the contract becomes binding have to be provided in such a way that the consumer is informed, with specific reference to the article to be purchased (here a mattress) and the seal that is applied, that he will lose the right of withdrawal if he removes the seal?










(1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.
Case T-121/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL — 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))
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002401.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/24





Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL)
(Case T-121/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL - 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 032/31)
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 2501/2013-4), 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.
Case T-123/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word 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))
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002501.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/25





Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON)
(Case T-123/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word 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 032/33)
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 1635/2013-4), 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.
Case T-796/17: Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Mouldpro v EUIPO — Wenz Kunststoff (MOULDPRO)
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mechanical equipment, plastics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01004601.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/46





Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Mouldpro v EUIPO — Wenz Kunststoff (MOULDPRO)
(Case T-796/17)
(2018/C 032/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: W Rebernik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, 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 ‘MOULDPRO’ — EU trade mark No 10 022 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2017 in Case R 2153/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Unlawful registration by an agent or representative, CTMR article 51(1)(b), in conjunction with article 8(3);










—


Earlier non registered trademark rights used in the course of trade CTMR article 53(1)(c), in conjunction with article 8(4);










—


The EUTM was applied in bad faith by the proprietor CMTR article 52(1)(b).
Decision No 1/2017 of the EU-Georgia Association Committee in Trade configuration of 6 December 2017 establishing the list of arbitrators referred to in Article 268(1) of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part [2018/2]
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: European Union, Georgia
Subjects: EAEC, Georgia, association agreement (EU), commercial arbitration, settlement of disputes, trade dispute








L_2018001EN.01000301.xml










4.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 1/3








            DECISION No 1/2017 OF THE EU-GEORGIA ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE IN TRADE CONFIGURATION
         
of 6 December 2017
         
establishing the list of arbitrators referred to in Article 268(1) of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part [2018/2]


THE ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE IN TRADE CONFIGURATION,

Having regard to the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part (‘the Agreement’), and in particular Article 268(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 431 of the Agreement, parts of the Agreement have been applied provisionally since 1 September 2014.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 408(3) of the Agreement, the Association Committee has the power to adopt decisions as provided for in the Agreement.












(3)


Pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Agreement, the Association Committee in Trade configuration, as set out in Article 408(4) of the Agreement, is to establish a list of at least 15 individuals who are willing and able to serve as arbitrators in dispute settlement proceedings within six months of the start of the provisional application of the Agreement,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The list of arbitrators for the purposes of Article 268(1) of the Agreement is established as set out in the Annex.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Tbilisi, 6 December 2017.


For the Association Committee in Trade configuration


The Chair

G. ARVELADZE
            

Secretaries

M. GABUNIA
            
S. ZALESKI
            







ANNEX

LIST OF ARBITRATORS

I.   Arbitrators proposed by Georgia






1.


Christian HÄBERLI (Switzerland)










2.


Donald MCRAE (Canada)










3.


John ADANK (New Zealand)










4.


Ronald SABORIO (Costa Rica)










5.


Thomas COTTIER (Switzerland)




II.   Arbitrators proposed by the EU






1.


Claus–Dieter EHLERMANN










2.


Giorgio SACCERDOTI










3.


Jacques BOURGEOIS










4.


Pieter Jan KUIJPER










5.


Ramon TORRENT




III.   Chairpersons






1.


David Unterhalter (South Africa)










2.


Merit Janow (US)










3.


Helge Seland (Norway)










4.


Leora Blumberg (South Africa)










5.


William Davey (US)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2363 of 6 December 2017 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Μελεκούνι’ (Melekouni) (PGI))
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Aegean Islands, Greece, confectionery product, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2017337EN.01001601.xml










19.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 337/16








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2363
of 6 December 2017
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Μελεκούνι’ (Melekouni) (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece's application to register the name ‘Μελεκούνι’ (Melekouni) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Μελεκούνι’ (Melekouni) should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Μελεκούνι’ (Melekouni) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits or other baker's wares as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 December 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 280, 24.8.2017, p. 7.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-801/17: Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, medical research, provision of services, registered trade mark, research body, research report, trade-mark law








C_2018042EN.01004201.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/42





Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)
(Case T-801/17)
(2018/C 042/58)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de’ — Application for registration No 15 073 381

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 524/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (OJ L 178, 11.7.2017)
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: aid to undertakings, bank, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial control








L_2017320EN.01003101.xml










6.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 320/31







Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A.

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 178 of 11 July 2017
)


On page 15, recital 4:
for:


                     ‘The Commission agrees with the resolution scheme. In particular, it agrees with the reasons provided by the SRB of why resolution is necessary in the public interest in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.’,

read:


                     ‘The Commission agrees with the resolution scheme. In particular, it agrees with the reasons provided by the SRB of why resolution is necessary in the public interest in accordance with Article 18(5) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.’.
Case T-120/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington) (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))
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002301.xml










29.1.2018   


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.
Case T-122/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington) (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))
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002402.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/24





Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)
(Case T-122/16) (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 032/32)
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 2409/2013-4), 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.