do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU figurative marks SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Earlier national word mark MULTIPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, dietary product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2019213EN.01003101.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/31






Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)
(Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU figurative marks SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA - Earlier national word mark MULTIPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 213/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, 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: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States) (represented by: K. Neefs and S. Cubitt, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sona Nutrition and Solgar Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Joins Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18 for the purposes of the judgment;











2.



Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4);











3.



Orders EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc. to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Sona Nutrition Ltd.







(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case C-364/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați (Romania) lodged on 7 May 2019 — XU and Others v S.C. Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN S.A. and Credit Europe Bank NV
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, exchange rate, financial risk, loan, unfair terms of contract








C_2019288EN.01001902.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați (Romania) lodged on 7 May 2019 — XU and Others v S.C. Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN S.A. and Credit Europe Bank NV
(Case C-364/19)
(2019/C 288/25)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Galați

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC

Respondents and cross-appellants: S.C. Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN S.A., Credit Europe Bank NV

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as interpreted in Case C-186/16, Andriciuc and Others, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the contract contains a term relating to exchange rate risk that reflects a provision of national law, national courts are required to examine as a first priority the relevance of the exclusion laid down in Article 1(2) of the directive, or instead the trader’s compliance with the obligation to provide information governed by Article 4(2) of the directive, without first assessing the relevance of the provisions of Article 1(2) of the directive?










2.


Are Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a failure to comply with the obligation to inform the consumer prior to the conclusion of the loan agreement, the trader may rely on the provisions of Article 1(2) of the directive, so that a contractual term relating to exchange rate risk that reflects a provision of national law is excluded from any assessment of whether the contractual terms are unfair?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).