do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-7/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Inforsacom Logicalis v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one) ((EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Business and technology working as one — Trade mark consisting in an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, information technology industry, maintenance, registered trade mark, teaching materials, telecommunications, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_2019093EN.01005801.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/58






Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Inforsacom Logicalis v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)
(Case T-7/18) (1)

(((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Business and technology working as one - Trade mark consisting in an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 93/74)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Inforsacom Logicalis GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 (Case R 808/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Business and technology working as one as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Inforsacom Logicalis GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Case T-521/18: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01004704.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/47






Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)
(Case T-521/18) (1)

(2019/C 65/64)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
Case C-786/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2018 — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, distributor, labelling, medicine, packaging, pharmacist








C_2019112EN.01002301.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2018 — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH
(Case C-786/18)
(2019/C 112/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: ratiopharm GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 96(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that pharmaceutical companies may also distribute free finished medicinal products to pharmacists, if their packaging is labelled ‘for demonstration purposes’, the medicinal products are used by the pharmacist to test the product, there is no risk of further distribution (of the unopened product) to end users and the further conditions for distribution set out in Article 96(1)(a) to (d) and (f) to (g) of that directive are met?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does Article 96(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC permit a national provision such as Paragraph 47(3) of the Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on medicinal products; ‘the AMG’), if that provision is interpreted as meaning that pharmaceutical companies may not distribute free finished medicinal products to pharmacists, if their packaging is labelled ‘for demonstration purposes’, the medicinal products are used by the pharmacist to test the product, there is no risk of further distribution (of the unopened product) to end users and the further conditions for distribution set out in Article 96(1)(a) to (d) and (f) to (g) of that directive and in Paragraph 47(4) of the AMG are met?






(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), in the version last amended by Regulation (EU) No 2017/745 (OJ 2017 L 117, p. 1).
Case T-801/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, medical research, provision of services, registered trade mark, research body, research report, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01005502.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/55






Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)
(Case T-801/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 93/70)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 524/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9202 — Bain Capital/Oscar Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, large vehicle, light-duty vehicle, merger control, retail trade, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2018451EN.01002001.xml










14.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/20






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9202 — Bain Capital/Oscar Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 451/08)

1.   
On 5 December 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:






—


Digital Auto Parts Holding (‘DAPH’, France), controlled by Bain Capital Investors, L.L.C. (‘Bain Capital’, USA),










—


Oscar Holding SAS (‘Oscaro’, France).




DAPH acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of Oscaro.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for DAPH: wholesale distribution of spare parts and accessories for light vehicles and heavy goods vehicles to the independent aftermarket,
—   for Oscaro: online retail distribution of spare parts and accessories for light vehicles mainly in France, and marginally in Spain, Belgium 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.
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.9202 — Bain Capital/Oscar Holding
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-736/18: Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger)
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2019065EN.01004301.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/43






Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger)
(Case T-736/18)
(2019/C 65/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Runnebaum Invest GmbH (Diepholz, Germany) (represented by: W. Prinz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berg Toys Beheer BV (Ede, Netherlands)

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 Bergsteiger — Application for registration No 15 145 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 572/2018-4

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 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-761/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — UR v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) — Eligibility condition — Required qualification — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Article 27, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, audit, competition (EU), diploma, professional qualifications, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019093EN.01005501.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/55






Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — UR v Commission
(Case T-761/17) (1)

((Civil service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) - Eligibility condition - Required qualification - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Article 27, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations))
(2019/C 93/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 11 August 2017 of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/322/16, taken following a review, not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders UR to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Case T-725/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v EFSA (Plant protection products — Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Conclusion of the EFSA review — Partial publication of that conclusion — Article 63 of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Request for confidential treatment of certain sections — Protection of commercial interests — Refusal to grant confidential treatment — Interest in bringing proceedings)
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, insecticide, market approval, plant health control, trade information








C_2019072EN.01001601.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/16






Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v EFSA
(Case T-725/15) (1)

((Plant protection products - Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron - Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Conclusion of the EFSA review - Partial publication of that conclusion - Article 63 of Regulation No 1107/2009 - Request for confidential treatment of certain sections - Protection of commercial interests - Refusal to grant confidential treatment - Interest in bringing proceedings))
(2019/C 72/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV, formerly Chemtura Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Moro and P. Ondrůšek, and subsequently by P. Ondrůšek and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of EFSA of 10 December 2015 relating to the publication of certain sections of the EFSA peer review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron concerning the metabolite PCA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Case T-802/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, medical research, provision of services, registered trade mark, research body, research report, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01005601.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/56






Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)
(Case T-802/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 93/71)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 525/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Case T-750/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FV v Council (Civil Service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Leave in the interests of the service — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Manifest error of assessment — Liability)
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, equal treatment, indemnification, special leave








C_2019093EN.01004701.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/47






Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FV v Council
(Case T-750/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Equal treatment - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Manifest error of assessment - Liability))
(2019/C 93/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FV (represented by: initially, L. Levi and A. Tymen, and subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and J. A. Steele, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 December 2015 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, if necessary, the decision of 19 July 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 8 December 2015 by which FV has been placed on leave in the interests of the service;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by FV;










4.


Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Case T-803/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, medical research, provision of services, registered trade mark, research body, research report, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01005701.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/57






Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest)
(Case T-803/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 93/72)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 526/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign ORIGINAL excellent dermatest as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Case T-523/18: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)
Date: 2018-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01004802.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/48






Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)
(Case T-523/18) (1)

(2019/C 65/66)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.