do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-192/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019206EN.01004801.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/48






Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)
(Case T-192/19)
(2019/C 206/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia SpA (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark goclean — EU trade mark No 13 270 046

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2019 in Case R 991/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul and alter the contested decision;
and, consequently,










—


recognise the validity of EU trade mark No 13270046 ‘goclean’, registered on 9 February 2013, in respect of all or some of the goods in Class 11 (Flushing tanks for toilets; Toilet bowls; Water distribution installations);










—


order EUIPO and/or the applicant Ceramica Cielo S.p.A. to pay Ceramica Flaminia S.p.A.’s costs relating to the present proceedings as well as the two previous stages before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Interpretation of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Unfounded classification of the mark as a slogan;










—


Infringement and misapplication of Article 95(1) in conjunction with Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-190/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — BF v Commission
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, action for failure to act, control of State aid, operation of the Institutions, restriction on competition








C_2019213EN.01004001.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/40






Action brought on 4 April 2019 — BF v Commission
(Case T-190/19)
(2019/C 213/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: BF (represented by: S. Gesterkamp, lawyer, and C. König, Professor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, as from 18 December 2018, the date of electronic service of the applicant’s second letter requesting the defendant to act, the defendant failed through inaction to fulfil its obligation to issue a decision, to be sent to the applicant as a complainant, closing the preliminary examination procedure in State aid case SA.48706 (RVV Rostocker Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-Holding GmbH and Nordwasser GmbH), that is, either a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure or a decision not to initiate that procedure;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and










—


as a precaution and in the alternative, should the defendant remedy its failure to act after the action has been brought, order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following pleas in law.
The applicant claims, first of all, that the requirements of an action for failure to act have been met, in particular because the factual circumstances were, on the date of service of the second letter requesting the defendant to act, such as to permit a decision closing the preliminary examination procedure under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1)

The applicant further submits that the defendant, in its administrative letter of 17 December 2018, merely normatively stated a legal monopoly in favour of Nordwasser GmbH, commissioned by means of an in-house transaction, which could rule out a distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, without thereby addressing factual issues such as the factual precondition of favourable treatment.
The applicant also claims that, in submitting its complaint, it had already disproved at an earlier stage of the procedure that a legal monopoly had been formed in accordance with EU law. In any event, the defendant should have expressed its view purely legally on the basis of the established facts and, consequently, at least have issued an actionable decision not to initiate the procedure under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 by no later than December 2018.


(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Case T-202/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTour)
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, camping vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts, vehicle rental








C_2019182EN.01003701.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/37






Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTour)
(Case T-202/19)
(2019/C 182/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Knaus Tabbert GmbH (Jandelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carado GmbH (Leutkirch im Allgäu, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CaraTour — Application for registration No 15 366 313

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 506/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject Carado GmbH’s opposition of 27 July 2016 regarding EU trade mark No 4 935 334 and German trade mark No 30 611 776 (Case B 2 742 784) in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-779/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark VIÑA ALARDE — Earlier national word mark ‘ALARDE’ — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019172EN.01003201.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/32






Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE)
(Case T-779/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VIÑA ALARDE - Earlier national word mark ‘ALARDE’ - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2019/C 172/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: United Wineries, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín, SL (Cigales, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 281/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín and United Wineries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders United Wineries, SA to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Case C-283/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier








C_2019238EN.01000801.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-283/19)
(2019/C 238/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
By decision of the President of the Court of Justice of 23 May 2019 the case was removed from the Court’s register.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9334 — GTCR/Apax Partners/Dolphin TopCo) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, health care, insurance, investment company, merger control, provision of services, technology, telecommunications








C_2019136EN.01000502.xml










12.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9334 — GTCR/Apax Partners/Dolphin TopCo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 136/03)
On 4 April 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 32019M9334. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9288 — CACF/BBPM/Agos Ducato/ProFamily) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, credit institution, economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2019125EN.01000601.xml










4.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 125/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9288 — CACF/BBPM/Agos Ducato/ProFamily)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 125/06)

1.   
On 29 March 2019, 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:






—


CA Consumer Finance S.A. (‘CACF’, France), solely controlled by Crédit Agricole S.A. (France),










—


Banco BPM S.p.A (‘BBPM’, Italy),










—


Agos Ducato S.p.A. (‘Agos Ducato’, Italy), jointly controlled by CACF and BBPM,










—


ProFamily S.p.A. (‘ProFamily’, Italy), a wholly owned subsidiary of BBPM.




CACF and BBPM acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over ProFamily through Agos Ducato, a pre-existing joint venture company. ProFamily is currently exclusively controlled by BBPM.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CACF is active in the consumer finance sector in France and several other European countries, as well as in China and Morocco,










—


BBPM is a banking group mainly active in Italy,










—


Agos Ducato operates in the consumer credit sector in Italy,










—


ProFamily offers consumer credit products in Italy. The business of ProFamily that is not distributed through the banking network of BBPM is not part of the proposed concentration.






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.9288 — CACF/BBPM/Agos Ducato/ProFamily
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’).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019125EN.01000201.xml










4.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 125/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 April 2019
(2019/C 125/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1243 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4643 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85390 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4300 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1206 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6218 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,724 




HUF


Hungarian forint


320,05 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2930 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7555 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3014 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5794 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4964 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8246 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6551 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5209 




KRW


South Korean won


1 275,35 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9120 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5423 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4290 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 939,20 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5900 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,608 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,3600 




THB


Thai baht


35,697 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3130 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5195 




INR


Indian rupee


76,9305 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9311 — Berry/RPC) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, non-woven fabric, packaging, plastics industry








C_2019125EN.01000501.xml










4.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 125/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9311 — Berry/RPC)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 125/05)

1.   
On 27 March 2019, 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:






—


Berry Global Group, Inc. (‘Berry’, United States of America),










—


RPC Group Plc (‘RPC’, United Kingdom).




Berry acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of RPC.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares, by means of a court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Berry: manufacture of plastic packaging, non-woven specialty materials and engineered materials,
—   for RPC: manufacture of plastic products, including packaging and non-packaging.


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.9311 — Berry/RPC
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-193/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Achema and Achema Gas Trade v Commission
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Lithuania, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, gas industry, services of general interest








C_2019206EN.01005001.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/50






Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Achema and Achema Gas Trade v Commission
(Case T-193/19)
(2019/C 206/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) and Achema Gas Trade UAB (Jonava) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, J. Wileur, and N. Solárová, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission decision C(2018) 7141 final, adopted by the European Commission on 31 October 2018 in State aid case SA.44678 (2018/N) — Lithuania — Modification of aid for LNG Terminal in Lithuania;










—


order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, to the effect that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure, thereby depriving the applicants and other interested third parties of the procedural rights of Article 108(2) TFEU.






—


The applicants argue that all the evidence in this case indicates that the Commission should have had doubts about the compatibility of the State aid with the internal market and therefore should have opened a formal investigation. The evidence ranges from the length of the preliminary investigation, other circumstances under which the contested decision was adopted and the flaws reflected in the content of the decision, which is insufficiently reasoned and vitiated by serious errors of assessment. Moreover, it is alleged that the Commission ignored very relevant aspects that should have been considered before concluding that it had enough information to declare the aid compatible with the internal market.










—


In particular, the applicants argue that: (i) the assessment of the need for a Service of General Economic Interest (SGEI) and its scope is flawed and insufficient; (ii) the Commission erred in finding that the aid was compliant with the SGEI framework; (iii) the contested decision did not sufficiently assess the latest amendments to the aid and therefore lacks adequate reasoning; (iv) the assessment in the contested decision of the necessity and proportionality of the aid measures is flawed and insufficient; and (v) the contested decision fails to sufficiently assess the significant impact on competition in the supply of gas in Lithuania and trade with other Member States.
Case T-373/18: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — ABB AB v EUIPO (FLEXLOADER) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark FLEXLOADER — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Neologism — Insufficiently direct and specific connection with certain goods and services covered by the mark applied for)
Date: 2019-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, industrial robot, machine tool, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019182EN.01003201.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/32






Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — ABB AB v EUIPO (FLEXLOADER)
(Case T-373/18) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark FLEXLOADER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Neologism - Insufficiently direct and specific connection with certain goods and services covered by the mark applied for)
(2019/C 182/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 93/2018-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign FLEXLOADER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 93/2018-1) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign FLEXLOADER for:







—



the ‘mechanical tools for the application of humectant, binders, oilers, lubricants or dyes’, within Class 7 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957; and











—



the ‘electronic data entry and data processing devices, microprocessors, electrical input and output unit, compact discs, floppy disks, magnetic tapes and semiconductors for the storage of technical data’, within Class 9 of the Nice Arrangement.















2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders ABB AB and EUIPO to each bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.