do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-214/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FUNNY BANDS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, asbestos, business management, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, natural rubber, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01003001.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/30






Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)
(Case T-214/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FUNNY BANDS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 44/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and A. Zarm, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frédéric Dubois (Lasne, Belgium), MFunds USA LLC (Miami Beach, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 1081/2016-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Out of the blue, of the one part, and Frédéric Dubois and MFunds USA, of the other part.

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 20 January 2017 (Case R 1081/2016-2), in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark FUNNY BANDS for ‘precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewellery, jewellery; rings (jewellery); rings (jewellery); bracelets (jewellery); necklaces (jewellery); novelty key rings’ in Class 14, ‘rubber, gutta-percha, gum and products made of those materials, not included in other classes; flexible pipes, not of metal; rubber rings; unworked or semi-worked rubber; cords of rubber’ in Class 17 and ‘services of wholesale and retail of precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, rings (jewellery), rings (jewellery), bracelets (jewellery), necklaces (jewellery), rubber, gutta-percha, gum and goods made from these materials, flexible pipes, not of metal’ in Class 35;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Case T-683/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01004001.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/40






Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)
(Case T-683/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 44/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2086/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8907 — Aperam/VDM) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control








C_2018447EN.01000201.xml










12.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8907 — Aperam/VDM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 447/03)
On 29 November 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8907 — Aperam/VDM, to the following 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-459/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Deficiencies in the IACS — Permanent pastures — Risk for the fund — Document VI/5330/97 — Article 73a(2a) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 — Flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 %)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, grassland








C_2019044EN.01002102.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/21






Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-459/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Deficiencies in the IACS - Permanent pastures - Risk for the fund - Document VI/5330/97 - Article 73a(2a) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 81(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 - Flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 %))
(2019/C 44/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Triantafyllou, then by: I. Galindo Martín, N. Ruiz García and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and in so far as it imposes






—


a flat-rate correction of 25 % regarding wooded grazing pastures for the claim years 2010 to 2013; and










—


a flat-rate correction of 10 % regarding shrub pastures declared by the ‘rearers’ for the claim years 2010 to 2013;














2)


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3)


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Case C-248/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — Bank Tejarat v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Annulment of a listing by the General Court — Re-listing — Reasons for the listing relating to financial support to the Government of Iran and the procurement of prohibited goods and technologies — Scope — Financing of oil and gas projects — Evidence dating from before the first listing — Facts known before the first listing — Article 266 TFEU — Res judicata — Scope — Effective judicial protection)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, bank, economic sanctions, financial aid, international sanctions, legal person, right to justice, trade restriction








C_2019035EN.01000301.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — Bank Tejarat v Council of the European Union
(Case C-248/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court - Re-listing - Reasons for the listing relating to financial support to the Government of Iran and the procurement of prohibited goods and technologies - Scope - Financing of oil and gas projects - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Article 266 TFEU - Res judicata - Scope - Effective judicial protection))
(2019/C 35/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bank Tejarat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and A. Meskarian, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, T. Otty QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Kneale and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Bank Tejarat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case T-373/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, gaming, marketing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01003301.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/33






Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)
(Case T-373/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))
(2019/C 44/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Fulia Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Fulia Trading.

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 29 March 2017 (Case R 1567/2016-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;










3.


Orders Fulia Trading Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.






(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force on imports into the Union of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of name and address of a company subject to an individual duty rate
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, business name, establishment, import (EU), organic acid, originating product








C_2018430EN.01000501.xml










29.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/5






Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force on imports into the Union of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of name and address of a company subject to an individual duty rate
(2018/C 430/05)
Imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 (1).
One company located in the People’s Republic of China, whose exports to the Union of citric acid are subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate, informed the Commission that it had changed its name and address as set out below.
The company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name and address does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate applied to the company under its previous name and address.
The Commission examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name and address in no way affects the findings of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82.
Therefore, the reference in Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 to:






COFCO Biochemical (Anhui) Co. Ltd — No 1 COFCO Avenue, Bengbu City 233010, Anhui Province, PRC


A874





should be read as:






COFCO Bio-Chemical Energy (Yushu) Co. Ltd — No 1 Dongfeng Avenue, Wukeshu Economic Development Zone, Changchun City 130401, PRC


A874




The TARIC additional code A874 previously attributed to COFCO Biochemical (Anhui) Co. Ltd, No 1 COFCO Avenue, Bengbu City 233010, Anhui Province, PRC, shall apply to COFCO Bio-Chemical Energy (Yushu) Co. Ltd, No 1 Dongfeng Avenue, Wukeshu Economic Development Zone, Changchun City 130401, PRC.


(1)  OJ L 15, 22.1.2015, p. 8.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9087 — Mondi Štětí/Holzindustrie Maresch/Eco-Investment/Labe Wood) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, wood industry








C_2019009EN.01000102.xml










10.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9087 — Mondi Štětí/Holzindustrie Maresch/Eco-Investment/Labe Wood)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 9/02)
On 29 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 language 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 32018M9087. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice concerning undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China: change of name and address of a company that has offered an undertaking
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, business name, establishment, import (EU), organic acid, originating product








C_2018430EN.01000601.xml










29.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/6






Notice concerning undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China: change of name and address of a company that has offered an undertaking
(2018/C 430/06)
The undertakings offered in the framework of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China were accepted by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/87 (1).
One company located in the People’s Republic of China, whose undertaking was accepted by Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/87, informed the Commission that it had changed its name and address as set out below.
The company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name and address does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the terms of the undertaking accepted under its previous name and address.
The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name and address in no way affects the findings of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/87.
Therefore, the reference in Article 1 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/87 to:






COFCO Biochemical (Anhui) Co. Ltd – No 1 COFCO Avenue, Bengbu City 233010, Anhui Province


A874





should be read as:






COFCO Bio-Chemical Energy (Yushu) Co. Ltd – No 1 Dongfeng Avenue, Wukeshu Economic Development Zone, Changchun City 130401


A874




The TARIC additional code A874 previously attributed to COFCO Biochemical (Anhui) Co. Ltd, No 1 COFCO Avenue, Bengbu City 233010, Anhui Province, shall apply to COFCO Bio-Chemical Energy (Yushu) Co. Ltd, No 1 Dongfeng Avenue, Wukeshu Economic Development Zone, Changchun City 130401.


(1)  OJ L 15, 22.1.2015, p. 75.