do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-772/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Café del Mar — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, broadcasting, culture, education, leisure, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01004201.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/42






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
(Case T-772/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Café del Mar - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 305/50)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Café del Mar, SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Spain) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1540/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González and, on the other, Mr Guiral Broto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1540/2015-5).











2.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar SC, Mr José Les Viamonte and Mr Carlos Andrea González in the proceedings before the General Court.











3.



Orders Mr Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.







(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case T-773/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Café del Mar — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, catering industry, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01004301.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/43






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
(Case T-773/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Café del Mar - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 305/51)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Café del Mar, SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Spain) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1542/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González and, on the other, Mr Guiral Broto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1542/2015-5).











2.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar SC, Mr José Les Viamonte and Mr Carlos Andrea González in the proceedings before the General Court.











3.



Orders Mr Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.







(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case T-1/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers — Unlimited jurisdiction — Infringement of the principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons — Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Particular circumstances — Error of law)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, disc drive, optical medium, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), tendering








C_2019305EN.01003601.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/36






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea v Commission
(Case T-1/16) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers - Unlimited jurisdiction - Infringement of the principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons - Point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Particular circumstances - Error of law)
(2019/C 305/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: L. Gyselen and N. Ersbøll, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Biolan, M. Farley, C. Giolito and F. van Schaik, and subsequently by A. Biolan, M. Farley and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed by the European Commission on the applicants in its Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Case T-355/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — CE v Committee of the Regions (Interim relief — Civil service — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, harassment at work, psychological harassment, servant (EU)








C_2019328EN.01005802.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/58






Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — CE v Committee of the Regions
(Case T-355/19 R)
(Interim relief - Civil service - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)
(2019/C 328/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, M. Esparrago Arzadun and S. Bachotet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of, primarily, the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 17 April 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract, and, in the alternative, the letter of the Committee of the Regions of 16 May 2019 concerning the conditions relating to the notice period, and, secondly, the adoption of interim measures relating to the terms of the notice period.

Operative part of the order







1.



The application for interim relief is dismissed.











2.



The costs are reserved.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9390 — Brookfield Asset Management/Oaktree Capital Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2019235EN.01000801.xml










12.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9390 — Brookfield Asset Management/Oaktree Capital Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 235/06)

1.   
On 5 July 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:






—


Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (‘Brookfield’, USA),










—


Oaktree Capital Group Holdings, L.P. (‘OCGH’, USA),










—


Oaktree Capital Group, LLC (‘Oaktree’, USA).




OCGH currently solely controls Oaktree. The concentration consists of Brookfield and OCGH acquiring joint control of Oaktree within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Brookfield provides asset management services, focused on real estate, infrastructure, renewable power and private equity,










—


OCGH and Oaktree are part of the Oaktree Capital Group, a provider of asset management services focused mainly on corporate credit investment.






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.9390 — Brookfield Asset Management/Oaktree Capital Group
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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-772/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Quanta Storage v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, disc drive, optical medium, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), tendering








C_2019305EN.01003501.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/35






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Quanta Storage v Commission
(Case T-772/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
(2019/C 305/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Quanta Storage, Inc. (Taoyuan, Taiwan) (represented by: O. Geiss, lawyer, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and W. Sparks, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents, and by C. Thomas, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Dismisses the European Commission’s request that the amount of the fine of Quanta Storage, Inc. be increased;











3.



Orders Quanta Storage to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission.







(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Case T-291/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Transdev and Others v Commission (State aid — State aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies granted by the Île-de-France Region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Article 107 TFEU — Article 108 TFEU — Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Limitation period — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, investment aid, public transport, regional aid, restriction on competition, transport company








C_2019328EN.01004101.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/41






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Transdev and Others v Commission
(Case T-291/17) (1)

(State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies granted by the Île-de-France Region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 328/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Transdev (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), Transdev Île de France (Issy-les-Moulineaux), Transports rapides automobiles (TRA) (Villepinte, France) (represented by: F. Salat-Baroux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017, on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the application.











2.



Orders Transdev, Transdev Île de France and Transports rapides automobiles (TRA) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-412/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO — Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (mobile.ro) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark mobile.ro — Earlier national figurative mark mobile — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, data collection, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2019305EN.01005301.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/53






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO — Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (mobile.ro)
(Case T-412/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark mobile.ro - Earlier national figurative mark mobile - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova and V. Grigorova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 (Case R 111/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ and mobile.de.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders mobile.de GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’.







(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Case T-330/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Ceobus and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Article 107 TFEU — Article 108 TFEU — Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Limitation period — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, investment aid, public transport, regional aid, restriction on competition, transport company








C_2019328EN.01004302.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/43






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Ceobus and Others v Commission
(Case T-330/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)
(2019/C 328/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Ceobus (Génicourt, France) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by D. de Combles de Nayves and subsequently by F. Segalen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the application;











2.



Orders Ceobus and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9400 — Apollo Management/Ares/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2019243EN.01000101.xml










19.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9400 — Apollo Management/Ares/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 243/01)
On 12 July 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 32019M9400. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.