do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-45/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NOVENCO — Earlier EU word mark Novenco — Cancellation of the international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, drilling equipment, mining extraction, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01006901.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/69






Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO)
(Case T-45/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NOVENCO - Earlier EU word mark Novenco - Cancellation of the international registration - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
(2019/C 44/90)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Novenco Building & Industry A/S (Næstved, Denmark) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Re:

First, an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2017 (Case R 2354/2016-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Novenco Building & Industry and Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) and, second, a cross-claim made against that same decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the main action or on the cross-claim.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8950 — BASF DOM Business/Solenis/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, water treatment








C_2018414EN.01001501.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8950 — BASF DOM Business/Solenis/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 414/17)

1.   
On 6 November 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:






—


BASF DOM Business (‘BASF DOM Business’, Germany), solely controlled by BASF SE (Germany),










—


Solenis LLC (‘Solenis’, United States), solely controlled by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc. (‘CD&R’, United States),










—


A newly created joint venture (‘JV’, UK).




BASF SE and CD&R acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over the JV that will combine Solenis, with BASF’s global paper and water chemicals business.
The concentration is accomplished by way of transfer of assets and purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


BASF DOM Business is comprised of BASF SE’s global business in developing, manufacturing, marketing and selling wet-end paper chemicals and water treatment chemicals.










—


Solenis is a specialty chemical company and provider of process and water solutions. The company’s product portfolio includes process aids, water treatment chemistries, functional additives, and monitoring and control systems.










—


The JV will be a specialty chemical company and provider of process and water solutions.






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.



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.8950 — BASF DOM Business/Solenis/JV
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’).
Case T-374/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, administrator, harassment at work, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), psychological harassment, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019044EN.01008302.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/83






Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC
(Case T-374/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/116)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Case T-219/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — World Duty Free Group v Commission (State aid — Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Difference in treatment — Justification of the difference in treatment — Undertakings benefiting from the measure — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, corporation tax, equal treatment, establishment, foreign enterprise, goodwill, reimbursement of aid, shareholding








C_2019025EN.01003301.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/33






Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — World Duty Free Group v Commission
(Case T-219/10 RENV) (1)

((State aid - Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification of the difference in treatment - Undertakings benefiting from the measure - Legitimate expectations))
(2019/C 25/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: World Duty Free Group, SA, formerly Autogrill España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), Ireland (represented by: initially, G. Hodge and E. Creedon, and, subsequently, G. Hodge and D. Browne, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty and A. Goodman, Barristers) and Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48) and, in the alternative, of Article 4 of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders World Duty Free Group, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Case T-140/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik v EUIPO (LITECRAFT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark LITECRAFT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019016EN.01004402.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/44






Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)
(Case T-140/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LITECRAFT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 16/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany) (represented by: R. Plegge, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 (Case R 699/2017-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign LITECRAFT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Case T-113/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — RFA International v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia — Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the normal value and the export price — Single economic entity — Reflection of the anti-dumping duty in resale prices in the European Union — Application of a methodology different from that used in an earlier investigation — Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) and (10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Article 18.3.1 of the WTO anti-dumping agreement)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, dumping, export price, ferro-alloy, import (EU), originating product, semi-metal








C_2019025EN.01003801.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/38






Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — RFA International v Commission
(Case T-113/15) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia - Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the normal value and the export price - Single economic entity - Reflection of the anti-dumping duty in resale prices in the European Union - Application of a methodology different from that used in an earlier investigation - Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) and (10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Article 18.3.1 of the WTO anti-dumping agreement))
(2019/C 25/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in whole or in part of Commission Implementing Decisions C(2014) 9805 final, C(2014) 9806 final, C(2014) 9807 final, C(2014) 9808 final, C(2014) 9811 final, C(2014) 9812 final and C(2014) 9816 final of 18 December 2014 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Case C-648/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS, formerly ‘Balcia Insurance’ SE v ‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park — Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, civil liability proceedings, compulsory insurance, damage, insurance law, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2019016EN.01002501.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/25






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS, formerly ‘Balcia Insurance’ SE v ‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS
(Case C-648/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park - Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door))
(2019/C 16/31)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS, formerly ‘Balcia Insurance’ SE

Defendant:‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, set out in that provision, covers a situation in which the passenger of a vehicle parked in a car park, in opening the door of that vehicle, scraped against and damaged the vehicle parked next to it.


(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2017.
Special Report No 27/2018 — The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financial instrument, EU migration policy, Türkiye, aid to refugees, coordination of aid, foreign aid, migrant, migration control, refugee








C_2018414EN.01000501.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/5






Special Report No 27/2018
The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money
(2018/C 414/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 27/2018 The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9125 — Klio/Bertelsmann/Holtzbrinck/Skoobe) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: book trade, bookshop, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, publisher, retail trade, virtual library








C_2018435EN.01000101.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9125 — Klio/Bertelsmann/Holtzbrinck/Skoobe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 435/01)
On 15 November 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 German 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 32018M9125. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-831/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Flexagil — Genuine use of the mark — Article 18(1), second subparagraph,(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01004102.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/41






Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil)
(Case T-831/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Flexagil - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph,(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))
(2019/C 25/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DRH Licensing & Managing AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2017 (Case R 2043/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between DRH Licensing & Managing and Merck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders DRH Licensing & Managing AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9025 — Pizza Hut/Telepizza) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, franchising, merger control








C_2018414EN.01001301.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/13






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9025 — Pizza Hut/Telepizza)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 414/15)

1.   
On 7 November 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:






—


Pizza Hut International, LLC (‘Pizza Hut’, United States of America), belonging to the YUM! Group (United States of America),










—


Telepizza Group, S.A. (‘Telepizza’, Spain).




Pizza Hut enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with Telepizza.
The concentration is accomplished by way of agreements.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Pizza Hut: operation, directly or through master franchisees and franchisees, of pizza restaurants under the Pizza Hut brand in more than 100 countries over six continents,
—   for Telepizza: operation, directly or through master franchisees and franchisees, of pizza restaurants under the Telepizza brand in more than 20 countries, notably Spain and Portugal.


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.



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:
Case M.9025 — Pizza Hut/Telepizza
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’).
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, economic concentration, logistics, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2018414EN.01000301.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/3






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 414/05)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 16 October 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Bergé Automotive Logistics, S.L. and GEFCO España, S.A.. On 8 November 2018, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.