do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-460/17: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Bopp v EUIPO (Representation of an equilateral octagon) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a blue octagonal frame — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, analytical chemistry, legal aid, registered trade mark, teaching materials, testing, trade-mark law








C_2019035EN.01002301.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/23






Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Bopp v EUIPO (Representation of an equilateral octagon)
(Case T-460/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a blue octagonal frame - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 35/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: F. Pröckl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2017 (Case R 1954/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a blue octagonal frame as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Carsten Bopp to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Case T-689/18: Action brought on 21 November 2018 — Executive Selling v EUIPO (EXECUTIVE SELLING)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, auditing, business administration, business management, education, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01006001.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/60






Action brought on 21 November 2018 — Executive Selling v EUIPO (EXECUTIVE SELLING)
(Case T-689/18)
(2019/C 25/78)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Executive Selling (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative sign EXECUTIVE SELLING — Application for registration No 1 343 783

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2018 in Case R 313/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


The mark applied for taken as a whole is not descriptive of a characteristic of the services concerned. The analysis adopted by EUIPO is contrary to the terms of the applicable provisions and case-law and the registered sign is perfectly distinctive and therefore capable of fulfilling the essential function of a trademark.
Case T-587/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — HM v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — Refusal to allow participation in the assessment tests — Request for review — Refusal to forward that request to the selection board for the open competition on the grounds that it was out of time — Division of competences between EPSO and the competition selection board)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, competition (EU), recruitment, secretarial staff, servant (EU)








C_2019035EN.01001802.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/18






Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — HM v Commission
(Case T-587/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 - Refusal to allow participation in the assessment tests - Request for review - Refusal to forward that request to the selection board for the open competition on the grounds that it was out of time - Division of competences between EPSO and the competition selection board))
(2019/C 35/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: HM (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and G. Gattinara, agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dated 17 August 2015 not to take into account the request for review of the decision of the selection board not to allow the applicant to participate in the next stage of Competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15-3 and, secondly, of the ‘implied decision’ of the selection board not to grant that request.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dated 17 August 2015 not to take into account the request for review of the decision of the selection board not to allow HM to participate in the next stage of Competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15-3;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-17/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Case T-82/17: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — PepsiCo v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Exxtra Deep) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Exxtra Deep — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, nut, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019035EN.01002001.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/20






Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — PepsiCo v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Exxtra Deep)
(Case T-82/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Exxtra Deep - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 35/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Lampel and M. Pfaff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 (Case R 482/2016-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between PepsiCo and Intersnack Group.

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 24 November 2016 (Case R 482/2016-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by PepsiCo, Inc.;










3.


Orders Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-452/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège — Belgium) — Zako SPRL v Sanidel SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 1(2) — Definition of ‘commercial agent’ — Self-employed intermediary performing his activities from the principal’s business premises — Performance of tasks other than those related to the negotiation of sales or the purchase of goods for the principal)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, purchase, sale, sales representative, self-employed person








C_2019025EN.01000901.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège — Belgium) — Zako SPRL v Sanidel SA
(Case C-452/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘commercial agent’ - Self-employed intermediary performing his activities from the principal’s business premises - Performance of tasks other than those related to the negotiation of sales or the purchase of goods for the principal))
(2019/C 25/10)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zako SPRL

Defendant: Sanidel SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that person, performs his activities from the latter’s business premises does not prevent him from being classified as a ‘commercial agent’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that fact does not prevent that person from performing his activities in an independent manner, which is for the referring court to ascertain.










2.


Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person not only performs activities consisting in the negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods for another person, or the negotiation and conclusion of those transactions on behalf of and in the name of that other person, but also performs, for the same person, activities of another kind, without those other activities being subsidiary to the first kind of activities, does not preclude that person from being classified as a ‘commercial agent’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that fact does not prevent the former activities from being performed in an independent manner, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018421EN.01000901.xml










21.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/9






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 November 2018
(2018/C 421/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1421 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,34 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4627 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88908 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3133 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1328 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7135 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,032 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,25 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3177 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6673 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1203 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5712 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5071 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9445 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6683 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5675 




KRW


South Korean won


1 287,96 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0629 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9299 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4277 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 672,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7803 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,859 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,0039 




THB


Thai baht


37,655 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2919 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,3031 




INR


Indian rupee


81,6500 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, inland waterway transport, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, rail transport, road transport








C_2018421EN.01001501.xml










21.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 421/07)

1.   
On 12 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:






—


Bergé Automotive Logistics, S.L. (‘BAL’, Spain), belonging to Bergé y Cía, S.A.,










—


GEFCO España, S.A. (‘GEFCO España’, Spain), belonging to GEFCO, S.A. (GEFCO, France), ultimately controlled by the Russian state-owned rail company RZD.




BAL and GEFCO España acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly-created company that would integrate and manage the finished vehicle logistic businesses and assets of both companies in Spain.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.
The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 16 October 2018, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 8 November 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for BAL: the provision of logistics services and transport solutions especially to the automotive industry in Spain.
—   for GEFCO España: the provision of logistics services and transport solutions especially to the automotive industry in Spain.


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.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/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-688/18: Action brought on 21 November 2018 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer system, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01005902.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/59






Action brought on 21 November 2018 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)
(Case T-688/18)
(2019/C 25/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Pansch, S. Klopschinski and M. von Rospatt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brigade Electronics Group plc (Kent, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CORNEREYE — Application for registration No 15 175 284

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 in Case R 1966/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Information from the Commission pursuant to Council Decision (EU) 2018/1485
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ADN agreement, ADR agreement, common transport policy, international transport, revision of an agreement, scientific progress, technical standard, technological change, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety








C_2018421EN.01001001.xml










21.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/10






INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/1485
(2018/C 421/04)
Pursuant to Article 3 of Council Decision (EU) 2018/1485 of 28 September 2018 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union as regards the amendments to the Annexes to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) and to the Regulations annexed to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways (ADN) (1), the Commission informs that the decisions taken at the respective bodies are available at:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2018/CN.488.2018-Eng.pdf and https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2018/CN.489.2018-Eng.pdf


(1)  OJ L 251, 5.10.2018, p. 25.
Case C-713/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Ahmad Shah Ayubi v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Rules relating to the content of international protection — Refugee status — Article 29 — Social protection — Different treatment — Refuges with temporary right of residence)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, aid to refugees, equal treatment, refugee, residence permit, right of asylum, social-security benefit








C_2019025EN.01001302.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/13






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Ahmad Shah Ayubi v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land
(Case C-713/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/95/EU - Rules relating to the content of international protection - Refugee status - Article 29 - Social protection - Different treatment - Refuges with temporary right of residence))
(2019/C 25/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ahmad Shah Ayubi

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that refugees with a temporary right of residence in a Member State are to be granted social security benefits which are less than those received by nationals of that Member State and refugees who have a permanent right of residence in that Member State.










2.


A refugee may rely on the incompatibility of legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with Article 29(1) of Directive 2011/95 before the national courts in order to remove the restriction on his rights provided for by that legislation.






(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9071 — Banca Generali/Saxo Bank/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, electronic commerce, financial services, insurance, investment company, merger control








C_2019001EN.01000101.xml










3.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9071 — Banca Generali/Saxo Bank/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 1/01)
On 21 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 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 32018M9071. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-82/18: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY — Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY — Relative ground for refusal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, personal effects, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01006902.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/69






Order of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)
(Case T-82/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY - Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY - Relative ground for refusal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2019/C 44/91)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2018 (Case R 812/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Husky of Tostock and Husky CZ.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Husky CZ s.r.o. shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.