do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-28/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark AC MILAN — Earlier EU word marks AC and AC HOTELS BY MARRIOTT and earlier EU figurative mark AC HOTELS MARRIOTT — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the mark AC — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019288EN.01004701.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/47






Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)
(Case T-28/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark AC MILAN - Earlier EU word marks AC and AC HOTELS BY MARRIOTT and earlier EU figurative mark AC HOTELS MARRIOTT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the mark AC - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 288/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented: initially by E. Markakis and D. Walicka, and subsequently by E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2017 (Case R 356/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Marriott Worldwide and AC Milan

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Marriott Worldwide Corp. to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Case C-476/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs territory (EU), export (EU), goods and services, import (EU)








C_2019288EN.01003501.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/35






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB
(Case C-476/19)
(2019/C 288/42)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket

Defendant: Combinova AB

Question referred

A customs debt on importation or exportation incurred under Article 79 is to be extinguished in accordance with Article 124(1)(k) (1) if there is sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the goods have not been used or consumed and have been removed from the customs territory of the Union. Does the term ‘used’ mean that goods have been processed or refined for the purpose for which authorisation was granted to a company for those goods, or does the term concern a use which goes beyond that processing or refining? Is it relevant whether the use takes place before or after the customs debt arose?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
Case C-467/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against QR
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative sentence, charge, criminal proceedings, equal treatment, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019280EN.01002902.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against QR
(Case C-467/19)
(2019/C 280/40)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

QR

Question referred

Is case-law such as that at issue, which concerns the national law regarding the approval by the court of an agreement on the imposition of a negotiated penalty concluded between the prosecution and the defence, which provides for the consent of the other persons charged as a condition for the approval of such an agreement, and that that consent is required only during the trial stage of the proceedings, consistent with Article 7(4) of Directive 2016/343, (1) with Article 47 and Article 52 of the Charter, and with the principles of effectiveness and equality?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9373 — PAI Partners/Areas Worldwide) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2019217EN.01000102.xml










28.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9373 — PAI Partners/Areas Worldwide)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 217/02)
On 19 June 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 32019M9373. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-479/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2019 — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, investment company, mortgage, registration tax, right of establishment, tax relief








C_2019357EN.01000902.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2019 — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-479/19)
(2019/C 357/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Does EU law — in particular the provisions of the Treaty concerning freedom of establishment and free movement of capital, as interpreted by the Court — preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 35(10-ter) of Decree Law No 223/2006 (in so far as it grants relief on mortgage registration tax and the Land Registry fee only in respect of closed-end real estate investment funds)?
Case T-180/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01003701.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/37






Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)
(Case T-180/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2907/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9392 — EQT/Parques Reunidos Servicios Centrales) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment, investment company, leisure park, merger control








C_2019217EN.01000101.xml










28.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9392 — EQT/Parques Reunidos Servicios Centrales)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 217/01)
On 19 June 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 32019M9392. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical process, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, pharmaceutical industry, solvent








C_2019208EN.01000201.xml










19.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 208/2






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 208/02)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 4123


12 June 2019


Bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether (diglyme)
EC No: 203-924-4
CAS No 111-96-6







N.V. Ajinomooto OmniChem S.A.




Cooppallaan 91, 9230, Wetteren, Oost Vlaanderen, Belgium






REACH/19/23/0


Use as a solvent for the synthesis of the anti-HIV active pharmaceutical ingredient dapivirine


12 June 2026


Risk is adequately controlled in accordance with Article 60(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.
There are no suitable alternatives






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Winding-Up Proceedings — Decision to start winding-up proceedings in respect of LAMP Insurance Company Limited (Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Gibraltar, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2019208EN.01000401.xml










19.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 208/4






Winding-Up Proceedings
Decision to start winding-up proceedings in respect of LAMP Insurance Company Limited

(Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))

(2019/C 208/04)






Insurance undertaking







LAMP Insurance Company Limited




Address of registered office:




Suite 822, Europort 8




PO Box 708




Europort Road




Gibraltar








Date, entry into force and nature of decision


On 31 May 2019, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar appointed (with immediate effect) the Official Receiver as liquidator of LAMP Insurance Company Limited under S.160 Insolvency Act 2011.
The Official Receiver has appointed Grant Thornton Gibraltar as Adviser and Agent to undertake the liquidation of LAMP Insurance Company Limited.
The Liquidator through its agent will coordinate with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the United Kingdom to ensure that the claims of eligible UK policyholders are processed and submitted to the Compensation Scheme.
The Liquidator through its agent will adjudicate on non UK insurance claims for the admission of such claims in the liquidation estate. Any distribution to insurance creditors may only occur if there has been a successful realisation of assets.
Entry into force: 31 May 2019




Competent authorities







Supreme Court of Gibraltar




The Law Courts




227 Main Street




Gibraltar








Supervisory authority







Gibraltar Financial Services Commission




Suite 3, Ground Floor




Atlantic Suites




Europort Avenue




PO Box 940




Gibraltar








Liquidator appointed







The Official Receiver




H.M. Government of Gibraltar




Treasury Department




206/210 Main Street




Gibraltar




Adviser to the Official Receiver & Agent:





Grant Thornton Gibraltar




6A Queensway




PO Box 64




Gibraltar








Applicable law


Gibraltar law
Financial Services (Insurance Companies) (Solvency II Directive) Act 2015
Insolvency Act 2011
Insolvency Rules 2014
Companies Act 2014
Case T-307/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes — Absolute grounds for invalidity — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Form of use unable to be taken into account — Form that differs from the form under which the mark has been registered by significant variations — Inversion of the colour scheme)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019288EN.01004601.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/46






Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)
(Case T-307/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes - Absolute grounds for invalidity - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Form of use unable to be taken into account - Form that differs from the form under which the mark has been registered by significant variations - Inversion of the colour scheme)
(2019/C 288/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde; Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1515/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shoe Branding Europe and Adidas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders adidas AG to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA;











3.



Orders Marques to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case C-41/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/12/EU — Article 57(4)(c) and (g) — Award of public service contracts — Optional grounds for exclusion from participation in a public procurement procedure — Grave professional misconduct calling into question the integrity of an economic operator — Termination of an earlier contract on account of failures in its execution — Action before the courts preventing the contracting authority from assessing the breach of contract until the end of the judicial proceedings)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial proceedings, legal action, public contract, public procurement








C_2019270EN.01000901.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli
(Case C-41/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/12/EU - Article 57(4)(c) and (g) - Award of public service contracts - Optional grounds for exclusion from participation in a public procurement procedure - Grave professional misconduct calling into question the integrity of an economic operator - Termination of an earlier contract on account of failures in its execution - Action before the courts preventing the contracting authority from assessing the breach of contract until the end of the judicial proceedings)
(2019/C 270/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Meca Srl

Defendant: Comune di Napoli

Intervener: Sirio Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57(4)(c) and (g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which an action before the courts against a decision to terminate a public contract, taken by a contracting authority on account of significant deficiencies arising in the execution of that contract, prevents the contracting authority which issues a new call for tenders from conducting any assessment, at the stage of the selection of tenderers, of the reliability of the operator concerned by that termination.


(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Case T-183/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01003902.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/39






Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)
(Case T-183/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2500/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.