do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-384/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI — Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01005301.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/53






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
(Case T-384/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 408/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, D. Walicka and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2017 (Case R 496/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and M. J. Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case T-435/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HIPANEMA — Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — Aesthetically complementary nature — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01005601.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/56






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)
(Case T-435/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HIPANEMA - Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - Aesthetically complementary nature - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intevener before the General Court: Hipanema (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Witukiewicz Sebban, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 629/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Hipanema.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Grendene, SA, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Case T-570/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YQ v Commission
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, children's rights, education grant, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, school fees








C_2018408EN.01006001.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/60






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YQ v Commission
(Case T-570/18)
(2018/C 408/77)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: YQ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 15 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of general implementing provisions on the reimbursement of medical fees, in so far as the defendant’s amended interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure properly to balance the applicant’s interests and to comply with the principle of proportionality, which failures vitiate the contested decision.