do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-444/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark life coins — Earlier EU word mark LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer equipment, electrical equipment, electronic device, press agency, provision of services, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2018436EN.01004501.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/45






Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)
(Case T-444/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark life coins - Earlier EU word mark LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - 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 436/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Medion AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hagemeier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1569/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Medion and CompuGroup Medical.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CompuGroup Medical AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Medion AG.






(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Case T-164/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark WILD PINK — Earlier EU and national word marks PINK LADY — Earlier EU figurative marks Pink Lady — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, fruit, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2018436EN.01004201.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/42






Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)
(Case T-164/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WILD PINK - Earlier EU and national word marks PINK LADY - Earlier EU figurative marks Pink Lady - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 436/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Le Pontet, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters and H. Abraham, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pink Lady America LLC (Yakima, Washington, United States) (represented initially by: R. Manno and S. Travaglio, and subsequently by R. Manno, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2017 (Case R 87/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion, on the one hand, and Pink Lady America, on the other.

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 10 January 2017 (Case R 87/2015-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










3.


Orders Pink Lady America LLC to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2018-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, micro-computer, toy industry








C_2018372EN.01000201.xml










15.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/2






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2018/C 372/02)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 382,


the following text is inserted:








‘9503 00 87




Portable interactive electronic education devices primarily designed for children

This subheading includes portable devices (weighing not more than 10 kg) designed usually with the appearance of so-called laptops, tablets, smartphones and similar articles. They are, in particular, intended to be used by children for playful learning activities due to their design and simple operation.
These devices support learning by means of interaction between the child and the device. They enable the child to make a choice between various input options, based on one or more subjects, themes, etc. The devices are able to respond to these inputs and to provide feedback based on pre-programmed information. The child can consequently assess the level of its own success and learn from the experience.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9079 — Advent International Corporation/KN Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications, transport infrastructure








C_2018384EN.01000101.xml










24.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9079 — Advent International Corporation/KN Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 384/01)
On 15 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 32018M9079. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-618/18: Action brought on 15 October 2018 — ZI v Commission
Date: 2018-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, health insurance, married person, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018455EN.01003002.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/30






Action brought on 15 October 2018 — ZI v Commission
(Case T-618/18)
(2018/C 455/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZI (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s husband affiliation to the JSIS;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Article 13 of the Joint Rules on Sickness Insurance for officials of the European Union, in so far as that article breaches Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, since it restricts the scope thereof.