do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9426 — 3M Company/Acelity) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control








C_2019308EN.01000701.xml










12.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 308/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9426 — 3M Company/Acelity)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 308/06)

1.   
On 3 September 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:






—


3M Company (‘3M’, US),










—


Acelity, Inc. (‘Acelity’, US).




3M acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Acelity.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


3M is a diversified technology company. Through its health care division, 3M offers a broad range of medical solutions, including advanced wound dressings,










—


Acelity is primarily active in the development and commercialisation of advanced wound care products, including through its subsidiaries Kinetic Concepts, Inc, Systagenix Wound Management, Limited and Crawford Healthcare Limited.






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.9426 — 3M Company/Acelity
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’).
Case C-678/19 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Retail Royalty Co. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-54/18: Fashion Energy v EUIPO - Retail Royalty
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, optical industry, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01002302.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/23






Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Retail Royalty Co. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-54/18: Fashion Energy v EUIPO - Retail Royalty
(Case C-678/19 P)
(2020/C 10/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Retail Royalty Co. (represented by: M. Dick, Solicitor, and J. Bogatz, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fashion Energy Srl, European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 20 November 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Retail Royalty Co. shall bear its own costs.
Case T-182/19: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019399EN.01006902.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/69






Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)
(Case T-182/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark SOFTFOAM - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2019/C 399/87)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2019 (Case R 1399/2018-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign SOFTFOAM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Puma SE shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case C-299/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Industrial policy – Approximation of laws – Directive 98/34/EC – Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services – Article 1(11) – Concept of ‘technical regulation’)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, information society, press, provision of services, search engine, selective dissemination of information, technical standard








C_2019383EN.01000701.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.
(Case C-299/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial policy - Approximation of laws - Directive 98/34/EC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Article 1(11) - Concept of ‘technical regulation’)
(2019/C 383/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH

Defendant: Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998), must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits only commercial operators of search engines and commercial service providers that similarly publish content from making newspapers or magazines or parts thereof (excluding individual words and very short text excerpts) available to the public, constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of that provision, the draft of which is subject to prior notification to the Commission pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48.


(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Case C-680/19 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Fulmen against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2019 in Case T-405/15, Fulmen v Council
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, damages, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, legal person, proof, trade restriction








C_2019372EN.01002601.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/26






Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Fulmen against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2019 in Case T-405/15, Fulmen v Council
(Case C-680/19 P)
(2019/C 372/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Fulmen (represented by: A. Bahrami, N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

Primarily:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in part;










—


give final judgment in the matter;










—


order the Council to pay Fulmen the sum of EUR 6 456 507 in respect of material damage and EUR 100 000 in respect of non-material damage, together with default interest;










—


order the Council to pay all of the costs.




In the alternative:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in part;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Council to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Concerning the material damage, the General Court, in the first place, erred in law, infringed the principle of full reparation and deprived Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of their practical effect. The standard of proof required by the General Court made any compensation for the harm suffered impossible, despite the existence of a sufficiently serious and flagrant breach of EU law. In the second place, the judgment under appeal was vitiated by an error of law and by contradictory reasoning. In the third place, the General Court distorted the evidence and the facts.
Concerning the non-material damage, the judgment under appeal contains no statement of reasons as regards the criteria taken into account in order to assess ex aequo et bono the amount of the compensation.
Case T-629/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission (ERDF — ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Public procurement — Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC — Specific exclusion — Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, broadcasting, eligibility criteria, operational programme, programmes industry, services contract








C_2019399EN.01004401.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/44






Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-629/17) (1)

(ERDF - ESF - Reduction in financial assistance - Public procurement - Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC - Specific exclusion - Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters)
(2019/C 399/52)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Rudzińska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme Education for Competitiveness under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes Research and Development for Innovations under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and Technical Assistance under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs;











3.



Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9440 — Prezero Recycling Deutschland/Nehlsen/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, foodstuff, marketing, merger control, packaging product, raw material, retail trade, storage of waste, waste disposal, waste recycling








C_2019316EN.01000201.xml










20.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9440 — Prezero Recycling Deutschland/Nehlsen/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 316/03)
On 12 September 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 German language 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 32019M9440. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9528 — Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets/Currenta) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, chemical industry, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2019308EN.01000301.xml










12.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 308/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9528 — Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets/Currenta)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 308/04)

1.   
On 4 September 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:






—


InfraChem Holdings S.a r.l. (‘InfraChem’, Luxembourg), controlled by Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets (Europe) Limited (‘MIRA’) belonging to Macquarie Group Limited (‘Macquarie Group’, Australia),










—


Currenta GmbH & Co OHG (‘Currenta’, Germany), owned by Currenta Geschäftsführung-GmbH (‘Currenta GF’, Germany).




MIRA, through InfraChem, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Currenta and Currenta GF.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


MIRA focuses on the management of infrastructure and other real assets, including real estate, energy and agriculture,










—


Macquarie Group is a global provider of banking, financial, advisory, investment and fund management services listed on the Australian stock exchange,










—


Currenta and Currenta GF manage and operate integrated chemical parks with sites in Germany.






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.9528 — Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets/Currenta
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 C-541/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Trade marks – Directive 2008/95/EC – Article 3(1)(b) – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment – Sign comprising a hashtag)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019383EN.01003401.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/34






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
(Case C-541/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(b) - Distinctive character - Criteria for assessment - Sign comprising a hashtag)
(2019/C 383/37)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AS

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that in examining the distinctive character of a sign in respect of which registration as a trade mark is sought, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including all the likely types of use of the mark applied for. The latter correspond, in the absence of other indications, to the types of use which, in the light of the customs in the economic sector concerned, can be practically significant.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018
Case T-528/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — XI v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Occupational disease — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Reply to the complaint containing medical data — Medical confidentiality — Request for deletion of that data — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Right to privacy — Liability)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, data protection, indemnification, legal aid, occupational disease, personal data, professional secret, protection of privacy, psychological harassment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019399EN.01005201.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/52






Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — XI v Commission
(Case T-528/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Occupational disease - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Reply to the complaint containing medical data - Medical confidentiality - Request for deletion of that data - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Right to privacy - Liability)
(2019/C 399/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: XI (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 May 2018 (Case R/56/18), rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, based on Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the European Commission to pay XI the sum of EUR 2 500;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders each party to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1090 of 26 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance dimethoate, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 173, 27.6.2019)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product








L_2019235EN.01001101.xml










12.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 235/11







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1090 of 26 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance dimethoate, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 173, 27 June 2019
)


On page 40, in recital 15:
for:

               ‘
               17 October 2019
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               30 September 2019
               ’;
for:

               ‘
               17 July 2020
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               30 June 2020
               ’.
On page 41, in Article 3:
for:

               ‘
               17 January 2020
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               31 December 2019
               ’.
On page 41, in Article 4:
for:

               ‘
               17 October 2019
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               30 September 2019
               ’;
for:

               ‘
               17 July 2020
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               30 June 2020
               ’.