do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-398/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pielczyk v EUIPO — Thalgo TCH (DERMÆPIL SUGAR EPIL SYSTEM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark DERMÆPIL sugar epil system — Earlier national figurative mark dermépil — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Comparison of the goods)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019263EN.01004702.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/47






Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pielczyk v EUIPO — Thalgo TCH (DERMÆPIL SUGAR EPIL SYSTEM)
(Case T-398/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark DERMÆPIL sugar epil system - Earlier national figurative mark dermépil - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Comparison of the goods)
(2019/C 263/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Radoslaw Pielczyk (Klijndijk, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Kielar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and K. Kompari, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Thalgo TCH (Roquebrune-sur-Argens, France) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 (Joined Cases R 979/2017-4 and R 1070/2017-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Thalgo TCH and Mr Pielczyk

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Radoslaw Pielczyk to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Decision (EU) 2019/1199 taken by common accord between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 13 June 2019 on the location of the seat of the European Labour Authority
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: Bratislava region, EU office or agency, Slovakia, employment service, free movement of workers, labour mobility, seat of institution, single market








L_2019189EN.01006801.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 189/68








            DECISION (EU) 2019/1199 TAKEN BY COMMON ACCORD BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 13 June 2019
         
on the location of the seat of the European Labour Authority


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 341 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) establishes the European Labour Authority.












(2)


The location of the seat of the European Labour Authority should be determined,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The European Labour Authority shall have its seat in Bratislava.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Luxembourg, 13 June 2019.


The President

M.C. BUDĂI
            





(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004, (EU) No 492/2011, and (EU) 2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344 (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 21).
Case T-355/19: Action brought on 13 June 2019 — CE v Committee of the Regions
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, servant (EU)








C_2019255EN.01005601.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/56






Action brought on 13 June 2019 — CE v Committee of the Regions
(Case T-355/19)
(2019/C 255/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CE (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible and well founded;










—


annul the decision of 16 April 2019 and, in the alternative, annul the decision of 16 May 2019;










—


order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm incurred, amounting to the sum of EUR 19 200 non-inclusive of VAT, and compensation in respect of the non-material harm incurred, estimated to amount to the sum of EUR 83 208,24;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an abuse of process and infringement of Articles 47 and 49 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and of Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to fair and just working conditions, of the principle of sound administration and of the prohibition on any form of psychological harassment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging material inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment.