do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-89/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01002902.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/29





Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
(Case T-89/18)
(2018/C 134/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, 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: European Union word mark ‘Café del Sol’ — European Union trade mark No 6 105 985

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1095/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision and declare the opposition based on the earlier trade mark belonging to the opponent, Mr Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification, well founded.










—


Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark application No 6/105/985 CAFÉ DEL SOL, filed by the German company GASTRO & SOUL GmbH, in respect of ‘services for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation, catering’ in Class 43 of the International Classification, on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as a result of the coexistence of the marks at issue given the strong verbal similarity and the identity in terms of their application. In the alternative, if the General Court lacks jurisdiction in that regard, it should refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, provided that the opposition is deemed to be well founded.










—


In the further alternative, (i) annul the contested decision because of inconsistency and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and legal certainty by having expressly denied him the possibility of submitting a full translation of the opponent’s earlier trade mark in the context of Case R 1095/2017-4, thereby defeating one of the main purposes of the referral of the case back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ordered by the General Court on 13 December 2016 in Case T-548/15, and (ii) order a further referral back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal to remedy that situation and settle the dispute.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case C-131/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: debt, legal expenses, payment








C_2018142EN.01003602.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/36





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler
(Case C-131/18)
(2018/C 142/48)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

Defendant: Erika Ziegler

Question referred

Is Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fixed sum of EUR 40 referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive is to be offset against external legal costs which have been incurred in connection with the pre-litigation instruction of a lawyer following late payment on the part of the debtor and are therefore reimbursable under Article 6(3) of that directive?


(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
Case T-93/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition law, periodic penalty payment, restriction on competition, sporting event








C_2018142EN.01005501.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/55





Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission
(Case T-93/18)
(2018/C 142/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: International Skating Union (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT.40208 — International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning on which the Contested Decision rests is vitiated by a fundamental contradiction.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their object to restrict competition.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their effect to restrict competition.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the Applicant’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the claim that the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport reinforce the alleged restrictions of competition is groundless.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers by imposing on the Applicant remedies which bear no relation to a finding of infringement.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of periodic penalty payments lacks any valid legal basis.
Case T-94/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (fit+fun)
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dietary product, domestic animal, food supplement, pet food, registered trade mark, textile product, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01003201.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/32





Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (fit+fun)
(Case T-94/18)
(2018/C 134/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark fit+fun — Application No 15 996 432

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 847/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Council Decision of 19 February 2018 appointing the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, appointment of members




C_2018065EN.01000401.xml










21.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/4








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 19 February 2018
         
appointing the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office
(2018/C 65/04)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (1), and in particular Article 47(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By Decision of 4 December 2012 (2) the Council renewed the term of office of Mr Paul A.C.E. VAN DER KOOIJ as Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (the ‘Office’).












(2)


The term of office of Mr Paul A.C.E. VAN DER KOOIJ expired on 18 December 2017.












(3)


On 14 December 2017, after obtaining the opinion of the Administrative Council of the Office, the Commission proposed Mr Paul A.C.E. VAN DER KOOIJ, the only shortlisted candidate, for the post of Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Office,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

1.   Mr Paul A.C.E. VAN DER KOOIJ is hereby appointed Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (the ‘Office’) for a period of five years.


2.   The term of office of Mr Paul A.C.E. VAN DER KOOIJ shall run from the date on which he takes up his duties. That date shall be agreed between the President and the Administrative Council of the Office.



Article 2
The Chairperson of the Administrative Council of the Office shall be empowered to provide for all the arrangements necessary to implement Article 1.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 19 February 2018.


For the Council


The President

R. PORODZANOV
            





(1)  
            OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 4 December 2012 renewing the term of office of the Chairman of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ C 378, 8.12.2012, p. 2).
Case C-134/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disability insurance, free movement of workers, health insurance, incapacity for work, jurisdiction, social security legislation








C_2018182EN.01000901.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)
(Case C-134/18)
(2018/C 182/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maria Vester

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

Questions referred

‘Are Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU infringed in the case where the last competent Member State refuses, upon commencement of incapacity for work, after expiry of a waiting period of 52 [Or. 9] weeks of incapacity for work, during which illness benefits were awarded, entitlement to invalidity benefit on the basis of Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and the other, previously competent Member State applies, for the examination of the entitlement to a pro-rata invalidity benefit, a 104-week waiting period in accordance with the national law of that Member State?
If that is the case, is it compatible with the right of free movement that the person concerned, during this waiting time gap, is dependent on social assistance, or do Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU oblige the previously competent Member State to examine the entitlement to invalidity benefits after expiry of the waiting period under the legislation of the last competent Member State, even if the national law of the previously competent Member State does not permit this?’


(1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.
Case T-90/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (CAFE DEL SOL)
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01003001.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/30





Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (CAFE DEL SOL)
(Case T-90/18)
(2018/C 134/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, 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: European Union figurative mark ‘Café del Sol’ — European Union trade mark No 6 104 608

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1096/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision and declare the opposition based on the earlier trade mark belonging to the opponent, Mr Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification, well founded.










—


Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark application No 6 104 608, filed by the German company gastro & soul GmbH, in respect of ‘services for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation, catering’ in Class 43 of the International Classification, on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as a result of the coexistence of the marks at issue given the strong verbal similarity and the identity in terms of their application. In the alternative, if the General Court lacks jurisdiction in that regard, it should refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, provided that the opposition is deemed to be well founded.










—


In the further alternative, (i) annul the contested decision because of inconsistency and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and legal certainty by having expressly denied him the possibility of submitting a full translation of the opponent’s earlier trade mark in the context of Case R 1096/2017-4, thereby defeating one of the main purposes of the referral of the case back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ordered by the General Court on 13 December 2016 in Case T-549/15, and (ii) order a further referral back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal to remedy that situation and settle the dispute.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case T-96/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, education, publishing, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01003202.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/32





Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)
(Case T-96/18)
(2018/C 134/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Robert W. Cabell (Renton, Washington, United States) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zorro Productions, Inc. (Berkeley, California, United States)

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 ZORRO — EU trade mark No 5 399 787

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 1637/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the application for a declaration of partial invalidity of European Union trade mark registration No 5 399 787 for all the contested goods and services;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case T-88/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01002901.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/29





Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)
(Case T-88/18)
(2018/C 134/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ARMONIE’ — Application for registration No 16 430 068

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2063/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case C-130/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2018182EN.01000802.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-130/18)
(2018/C 182/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) (‘the Air Passenger Rights Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that there is no right to compensation in the event of cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure even in the case where the passenger is subject to a loss of time of less than three hours but more than two hours as a result of re-routing, because the actual arrival, in comparison with the scheduled arrival, is delayed by more than two hours but by less than three hours?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case T-103/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01003601.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/36





Action brought on 19 February 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)
(Case T-103/18)
(2018/C 134/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: S & V Technologies GmbH (Hennigsdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smoothline AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

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 ‘Smoothline’ — International registration No 958 169 designating the European Union

Proceedings before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 115/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case C-136/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2018 by Robert Hansen against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-304/16: bet365 Group v EUIPO
Date: 2018-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018399EN.01001702.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/17






Appeal brought on 19 February 2018 by Robert Hansen against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-304/16: bet365 Group v EUIPO
(Case C-136/18 P)
(2018/C 399/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Robert Hansen (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.