do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-561/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — L-Shop-Team v EUIPO (bags2GO) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark bags2GO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01005901.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/59






Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — L-Shop-Team v EUIPO (bags2GO)
(Case T-561/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark bags2GO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/76)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: L-Shop-Team GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: A. Sautter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Mensing and A. Söder, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 (Case R 1650/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign bags2GO as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders L-Shop-Team GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case T-24/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark D-TACK — Earlier national word mark TACK — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Use under a different form — Opposition dismissed — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adhesive, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2018427EN.01005001.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/50






Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)
(Case T-24/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark D-TACK - Earlier national word mark TACK - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Use under a different form - Opposition dismissed - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))
(2018/C 427/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LA Superquimica, SA (Barcelona (Spain)) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: D-Tack GmbH (Hüttlingen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 (Case R 1983/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between LA Superquimica and D-Tack.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LA Superquimica, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9055 — Lone Star/CaixaBank Assets) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, property market, provision of services








C_2018410EN.01000102.xml










13.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9055 — Lone Star/CaixaBank Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 410/02)
On 10 October 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) 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 32018M9055. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9115 — BC Partners/VetPartners) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, veterinary medicine








C_2018366EN.01001601.xml










10.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9115 — BC Partners/VetPartners)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 366/08)

1.   
On 2 October 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:






—


BC Partners LLP (United Kingdom) (‘BC Partners’), and










—


VetPartners Group Limited (United Kingdom) (‘VetPartners’)




BC Partners, through its wholly controlled fund BC European Capital X Fund, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation (indirect) sole control of the whole of VetPartners.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


BC Partners is an international private equity firm with headquarters in London with investments in a diverse range of sectors,










—


VetPartners is a veterinary practice group.






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.9115 — BC Partners/VetPartners
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018366EN.01001101.xml










10.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/11






Euro exchange rates (1)

9 October 2018
(2018/C 366/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1435 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,45 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4592 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87680 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4445 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1381 




ISK


Iceland króna


132,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4915 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,805 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,29 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3155 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6675 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,0183 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6203 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4861 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9590 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7784 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5859 




KRW


South Korean won


1 301,02 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1823 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9185 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4200 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 486,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7541 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,027 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,3635 




THB


Thai baht


37,850 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3112 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7228 




INR


Indian rupee


85,0840 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-625/18: Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: claim, debt, equality before the law, legal expenses








C_2019016EN.01004602.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/46






Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA
(Case T-625/18)
(2019/C 16/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FT (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision ESMA41-137-1154 of the Executive Director of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 9 August 2018 with which ESMA requests the recovery of the amount of EUR 12 000, in relation to the costs incurred by ESMA in Case F-39/14;










—


annul the related debit note No 4440180170 of 10 August 2018 issued by ESMA;










—


order ESMA to bear its own costs and those of the applicant in the current proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 98 of the Financial Regulation, (1) Article 60 of the ESMA Financial Regulation, (2) Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as well as the principle of equality of arms of the parties of a dispute, as the amount allegedly owed by the applicant and stipulated in the contested acts had not been determined in accordance with the said Article 170 by the General Court.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the costs claimed by the defendant are non-recoverable, as it exceeded the reasonable time for making such requests.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation by the defendant of the debt owed by the applicant, as the amount claimed of EUR 12 000 is exorbitant.






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

(2)  Decision of the Management Board on the Financial Regulation of the European Securities and Markets
Authority ESMA/2014/MB/38.
Case C-632/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 10 October 2018 — Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administration of the Institutions, credit, credit guarantee, financial supervision, legal status, special-status institution








C_2019004EN.01001301.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 10 October 2018 — Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)
(Case C-632/18)
(2019/C 4/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Société coopérative à responsabilité limitée ‘Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale’

Opposing party: Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)

Questions referred









1.


Are paragraphs 2.22, 2.23, 2.27, 2.28 and 20.33 of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts [in the European Union] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a separate institutional entity placed under government control must be regarded as being non-market and thus falling within the general government sector where it has the characteristics of a captive financial institution, there being no need to examine its risk exposure?












2.


Can an entity operating under government control be regarded as being a captive financial institution within the meaning of paragraphs 2.21 to 2.23, 2.27 and 2.28 of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts [in the European Union]:






(a)


on the ground that the regulation of its activity by the government in question removes from it control over its assets, even though it is afforded the capacity to decide to grant the mortgage loans which it provides, their duration, their amount and some of their conditions, whilst at the same time the government determines other factors, and in particular the interest rate applied to the loans;










(b)


on the ground that, inter alia, the guarantee given to it by government in respect of the loans taken out by it removes from it control over its liabilities, without examining the purpose and the effects of such a guarantee in the light of its features in the present case and of the underlying economic reality?










(1)  OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1.
Case T-374/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882 — Earlier national word marks CUERVO Y SOBRINO — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, office supplies, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01005502.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/55






Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882)
(Case T-374/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882 - Earlier national word marks CUERVO Y SOBRINO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/71)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by S. Ferrandis González and V. Balaguer Fuentes, and subsequently by S. Ferrandis González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Crawcour and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: A. Salgado Nespereira, SA (Ourense, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1141/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between A. Salgado Nespereira and Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the cross-claim;










3.


Orders Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;










4.


Orders A. Salgado Nespereira, SA to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case T-93/16: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VANGUARD — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, explosive, firearms and munitions, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01004001.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/40






Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)
(Case T-93/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VANGUARD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark VANGUARD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.