do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-61/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Coca-Cola v EUIPO — Mitico (Master) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Master — Earlier European Union figurative marks Coca-Cola and earlier national figurative mark C — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the reputation of earlier marks — Evidence relating to the commercial use, outside the European Union, of a sign comprising the mark applied for — Logical inferences — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 8(5) and Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) and Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002201.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/22





Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Coca-Cola v EUIPO — Mitico (Master)
(Case T-61/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Master - Earlier European Union figurative marks Coca-Cola and earlier national figurative mark C - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the reputation of earlier marks - Evidence relating to the commercial use, outside the European Union, of a sign comprising the mark applied for - Logical inferences - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 8(5) and Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) and Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 032/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, barrister, D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damas, Syria) (represented by: A.-E. Malamis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 (Case R 1251/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and Mitico.

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 2 December 2015 (Case R 1251/2015-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by The Coca-Cola Company, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










3.


Orders Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-802/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)
Date: 2017-12-07
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.01004301.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/43





Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)
(Case T-802/17)
(2018/C 042/59)
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 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED’ — Application for registration No 15 073 398

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 525/2017-4

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.
Case T-803/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest)
Date: 2017-12-07
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.01004302.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/43





Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest)
(Case T-803/17)
(2018/C 042/60)
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’ — Application for registration No 15 073 364

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 526/2017-4

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.
Case C-189/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen -- Sweden) — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 46(2) — Article 47(1)(d) — Article 50 — Guaranteed pension — Minimum benefit — Calculation of pension entitlement)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, migrant worker, pension scheme, retirement conditions, social security legislation








C_2018052EN.01000401.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen -- Sweden) — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten
(Case C-189/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 46(2) - Article 47(1)(d) - Article 50 - Guaranteed pension - Minimum benefit - Calculation of pension entitlement))
(2018/C 052/05)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck

Defendant: Pensionsmyndigheten

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, is to be interpreted as meaning that, when the competent institution of a Member State calculates a minimum benefit, such as the guaranteed pension at issue in the main proceedings, it is not inappropriate to apply Article 46(2) or Article 47(1)(d) of the regulation. Such a benefit must be calculated in accordance with Article 50 of the regulation, in conjunction with the provisions of national law, without, however, applying national provisions, such as those in the main proceedings, providing for a pro rata calculation;










2.


Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1606/98, and in particular Article 50 of that regulation, is to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State under which, when calculating a minimum benefit such as the guaranteed pension at issue in the main proceedings, the competent institution must take account of all the retirement pensions which the person concerned actually receives from one or more other Member States.






(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017418EN.01000601.xml










7.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 December 2017
(2017/C 418/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1817 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,52 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4421 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88335 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9265 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1678 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7575 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,636 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2142 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6320 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,5489 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5565 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4963 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2323 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7141 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5925 




KRW


South Korean won


1 291,50 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9847 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8169 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5463 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 007,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8160 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,891 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,7909 




THB


Thai baht


38,559 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8193 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,2030 




INR


Indian rupee


76,2430 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-323/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Intervention — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Selective nature of the measure — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(ii) — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, admissibility, control of State aid, excise duty, fuel, metallurgical industry, mineral oil, principle of legal certainty, tax exemption








C_2018063EN.01000201.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/2





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission
(Case C-323/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Intervention - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Selective nature of the measure - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(ii) - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons))
(2018/C 063/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Eurallumina SpA (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, L. Philippou and A. Stratakis, Solicitors)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Grasso, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission, (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.










2.


Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal.










3.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.










4.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Case T-332/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360°) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark 360° — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002701.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/27





Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)
(Case T-332/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark 360o - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 032/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 (Case R 2288/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign 360o as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case C-446/17: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Unfair terms — Rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant — Model rental contract made binding by an act of national legislation — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Inapplicability of that directive)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Flanders (Belgium), consumer protection, property leasing, subsidised housing, unfair terms of contract








C_2018063EN.01000401.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/4





Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji
(Case C-446/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Unfair terms - Rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant - Model rental contract made binding by an act of national legislation - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Inapplicability of that directive))
(2018/C 063/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Woonhaven Antwerpen

Defendants: Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to conditions contained in the social rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant, which are determined by national legislation such as Article 11 of the model rental contract annexed to the Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot reglementering van het sociale huurstelsel ter uitvoering van titel VII van de Vlaamse Wooncode (Flemish Government Decree to regulate the social rental system implementing Title VII of the Flemish Housing Code), of 12 October 2007.


(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case T-333/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360°) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark 360° — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002801.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/28





Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)
(Case T-333/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark 360o - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 032/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 (Case R 2287/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign 360o as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case C-373/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Aughinish Alumina Ltd v Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(i) — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, control of State aid, excise duty, fuel, metallurgical industry, mineral oil, tax exemption








C_2018063EN.01000302.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/3





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Aughinish Alumina Ltd v Ireland, European Commission
(Case C-373/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(i) - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons))
(2018/C 063/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (represented by: C. Little and C. Waterson, Solicitors)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: R. Coesme and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to pay the costs.










3.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Case C-636/16: Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona — Spain) — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno en Navarra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 12 — Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident — Matters to be taken into consideration — National legislation — Failure to take those matters into consideration — Whether compatible)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, removal, residence permit, third country








C_2018052EN.01001102.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/11





Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona — Spain) — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno en Navarra
(Case C-636/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 12 - Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident - Matters to be taken into consideration - National legislation - Failure to take those matters into consideration - Whether compatible))
(2018/C 052/15)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wilber López Pastuzano

Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno en Navarra

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as interpreted by some of the courts of that Member State, does not provide for the application of the requirements of protection against the expulsion of a third-country national who is a long-term resident to all administrative expulsion decisions, regardless of the legal nature of that measure or of the detailed rules governing it.


(1)  OJ C 46,13.2.2017.