do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-265/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2019 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Formata — Earlier international figurative mark Formata — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Rule 37 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Conditions governing the representation of the earlier mark — Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) — Legitimate expectations — Reimbursement of the costs of representation — Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001 and Rule 94 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019164EN.01004701.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/47






Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2019 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)
(Case T-265/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Formata - Earlier international figurative mark Formata - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Rule 37 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Conditions governing the representation of the earlier mark - Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) - Legitimate expectations - Reimbursement of the costs of representation - Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001 and Rule 94 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2019/C 164/50)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Illona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2018 (Case R 2032/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Biernacka-Hoba and Formata Bogusław Hoba

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 13 February 2018 (Case R 2032/2017-4), in so far as it ordered Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba to pay the costs incurred by Formata Bogusław Hoba for the purposes of the invalidity proceedings and the appeal and fixed the amount of the costs that Ms Biernacka-Hoba had to pay to Formata Bogusław Hoba at EUR 1000, and alters that decision to the effect that Ms Biernacka-Hoba must not be ordered to pay such a sum;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders each party to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case C-681/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — slewo — schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 6(1)(k) and Article 16(e) — Distance contract — Right of withdrawal — Exceptions — Concept of ‘sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and which have been unsealed by the consumer after delivery’ — Mattress whose protective seal has been removed by the consumer after delivery)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, packaging, termination of a contract








C_2019187EN.01002201.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/22






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — slewo — schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski
(Case C-681/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(k) and Article 16(e) - Distance contract - Right of withdrawal - Exceptions - Concept of ‘sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and which have been unsealed by the consumer after delivery’ - Mattress whose protective seal has been removed by the consumer after delivery)
(2019/C 187/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: slewo — schlafen leben wohnen GmbH

Respondent: Sascha Ledowski

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(e) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as a mattress, from which the protective film has been removed by the consumer after delivery, do not come within the scope of the concept of ‘sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and which have been unsealed by the consumer after delivery’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 March 2019 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision No 940/2014/EU as regards products eligible for exemption from or a reduction in dock dues (COM(2018)0825 — C8-0034/2019 — 2018/0417(CNS))
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: French overseas department and region, derogation from EU law, economic development, import tax, local tax, originating product, peripheral region, regional development, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2021108EN.01031101.xml










26.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/311






P8_TA(2019)0297
Products eligible for exemption from or a reduction in dock dues *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 March 2019 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision No 940/2014/EU as regards products eligible for exemption from or a reduction in dock dues (COM(2018)0825 — C8-0034/2019 — 2018/0417(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation)
(2021/C 108/34)

The European Parliament,







—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2018)0825),










—


having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0034/2019),










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0112/2019),












1.


Approves the Commission proposal;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019115EN.01000501.xml










27.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 115/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 March 2019
(2019/C 115/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1291 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,72 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4654 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85330 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4263 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1222 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6398 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,769 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,10 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2934 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7580 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2404 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5832 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5132 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8622 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6345 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5254 




KRW


South Korean won


1 280,91 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2218 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5818 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4188 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 999,35 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5971 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,404 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,5964 




THB


Thai baht


35,730 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3568 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5085 




INR


Indian rupee


77,7555 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-184/19: Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2019172EN.01004301.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/43






Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)
(Case T-184/19)
(2019/C 172/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Application for registration No 15 836 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 in Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the payment of the Applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law







—


In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal relies on an invalid provision of law;










—


Had there been an obvious error of law, the appropriate course was to revoke the previous decision;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principles of natural justice.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9276 — Sika/Financière Dry Mix Solutions) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 129/02
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2021129EN.01000601.xml










13.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9276 — Sika/Financière Dry Mix Solutions)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 129/02)
On 27 March 2019, 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 32019M9276. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-237/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, photovoltaic cell, semi-metal








C_2019187EN.01000902.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-237/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)
(2019/C 187/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd, formerly Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois and A. Willems, avocats, and by S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, J.-F. Brakeland and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;










4.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal;










5.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.