do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-85/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01004201.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/42





Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)
(Case T-85/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 142/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 3106/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas and Shoe Branding Europe.

Operative part of the order







1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8665 — Discovery/Scripps) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, television








C_2018077EN.01000102.xml










1.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8665 — Discovery/Scripps)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 77/02)
On 6 February 2018, 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32018M8665. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-136/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, cycle and motorcycle industry, footwear industry, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2018166EN.01003401.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/34





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)
(Case T-136/18)
(2018/C 166/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

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 trade mark K — European Union trade mark No 11 380 771

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 3111/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


hold and rule that the present action is admissible;










—


annul the contested decision in so far as it found that the applicant did not provide evidence of bad faith and held that the action seeking a declaration of invalidity based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR may not be allowed;










—


declare European Union trade mark No 11 380 771 invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case C-558/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Succession and European Certificate of Succession — Scope — Ability to include the surviving spouse’s share in the European Certificate of Succession)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, inheritance, law of succession, married person, mutual recognition principle, official document








C_2018142EN.01000901.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/9





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf
(Case C-558/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Succession and European Certificate of Succession - Scope - Ability to include the surviving spouse’s share in the European Certificate of Succession))
(2018/C 142/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

Other party: Sven Mahnkopf

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes, on the death of one of the spouses, a fixed allocation of the accrued gains by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate falls within the scope of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8821 — Advent International/Circet Groupe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2018077EN.01000801.xml










1.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8821 — Advent International/Circet Groupe)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 77/06)






1.


On 22 February 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Advent International Corporation (‘Advent’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Circet Groupe (‘Circet’, France), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Advent: US-based private equity investor sponsoring funds that invest globally,
—   for Circet: mid-sized French company operating in telecommunications infrastructures services as well as in the distribution of mobile telephony products and service, through its affiliate Circet Réseaux.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number:
M.8821 — Advent International/Circet Groupe to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
European Parliament resolution of 1 March 2018 on the Commission’s decision to activate Article 7(1) TEU as regards the situation in Poland (2018/2541(RSP))
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Poland, appointment of staff, constitutional court, control of constitutionality, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, judge, national law, rule of law








C_2019129EN.01001301.xml










5.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/13






P8_TA(2018)0055
Commission decision to activate Article 7(1) TEU as regards the situation in Poland
European Parliament resolution of 1 March 2018 on the Commission’s decision to activate Article 7(1) TEU as regards the situation in Poland (2018/2541(RSP))
(2019/C 129/03)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission reasoned proposal of 20 December 2017 in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) regarding the rule of law in Poland: Proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law (COM(2017)0835),










—


having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/103 of 20 December 2017 regarding the rule of law in Poland, complementary to Recommendations (EU) 2016/1374, (EU) 2017/146 and (EU) 2017/1520 (1),










—


having regard to the Commission’s decision to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for infringement of Union law by the law amending the law on the organisation of ordinary courts (2),










—


having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2017 on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland (3) and to its previous resolutions on the subject,










—


having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas its resolution of 15 November 2017 on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland states that the current situation in Poland represents a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU;












1.


Welcomes the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2017 to activate Article 7(1) TEU as regards the situation in Poland and supports the Commission’s call on the Polish authorities to address the problems;












2.


Calls on the Council to take swift action in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 7(1) TEU;












3.


Calls on the Commission and the Council to keep Parliament fully and regularly informed of progress made and action taken at every step of the procedure;












4.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the Council, the President, Government and Parliament of Poland, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).






(1)  OJ L 17, 23.1.2018, p. 50.

(2)  SEC(2017)0560.

(3)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0442.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8806 — Richemont/Yoox Net-a-Porter Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, holding company, luxury products industry, merger control, retail trade








C_2018077EN.01000601.xml










1.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8806 — Richemont/Yoox Net-a-Porter Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 77/05)






1.


On 23 February 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Compagnie financière Richemont SA (‘Richemont’, Switzerland),










—


RLG Italia Holding SpA (‘Bidco’, Italy), controlled by Richemont, and










—


Yoox Net-a-Porter Group SpA (‘YNAP’, Italy).




Richemont (through Bidco) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of YNAP.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 22 January 2018.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Richemont is a Swiss-based holding company for a range of luxury consumer goods and businesses. Through its various Maisons, Richemont is active in the design, production and distribution of luxury goods,










—


YNAP is an Italian-based online retailer of luxury consumer goods, listed on the Mercato Telematico Azionario managed by Borsa Italiana SpA, the Milan stock exchange.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8806 — Richemont/Yoox Net-a-Porter Group
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-402/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme — Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Time limit exceeded)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, financial aid, innovation, logistics








C_2018142EN.01004102.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/41





Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-402/15) (1)

((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme - Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Time limit exceeded))
(2018/C 142/53)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 3228 final of 11 May 2015, refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ in the context of Priority Axis 4 of operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case T-438/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CIPRIANI — Earlier EU word mark HOTEL CIPRIANI — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01004301.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/43





Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
(Case T-438/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CIPRIANI - Earlier EU word mark HOTEL CIPRIANI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 142/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy) (represented initially by P. Cantrill, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister, and subsequently by B. Brandreth, A. Poulter and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 (Case R 1889/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hotel Cipriani and Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Bilateral Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on prudential measures regarding insurance and reinsurance (08054/2017 — C8-0338/2017 — 2017/0075(NLE))
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: United States, agreement (EU), bilateral agreement, exchange of information, insurance, market supervision, ratification of an agreement








C_2019129EN.01007001.xml










5.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/70






P8_TA(2018)0045
EU-USA Bilateral Agreement on prudential measures regarding insurance and reinsurance ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Bilateral Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on prudential measures regarding insurance and reinsurance (08054/2017 — C8-0338/2017 — 2017/0075(NLE))
(Consent)
(2019/C 129/11)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (08054/2017),










—


having regard to the Bilateral Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on prudential measures regarding insurance and reinsurance (08065/2017),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 114 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0338/2017),










—


having regard to Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) (1),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0008/2018),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United States of America.






(1)  OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1