do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-288/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT — Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019406EN.01003001.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/30






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)
(Case T-288/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT - Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 406/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Southwark, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Yates, Solicitor, and N. Zweck, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2018 (Case R 1658/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case T-367/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark UKIO — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, advertising, board of management, business administration, education, registered trade mark, research, software, trade-mark law








C_2019406EN.01003101.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/31






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO)
(Case T-367/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark UKIO - Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 406/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu and J. Dorado Lopez-Lozano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic, D. Gája and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marijn van Oosten Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 (Case R 1536/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sixsigma Networks Mexico and Marijn van Oosten Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 267 6.8.2018.
Case T-696/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Havenbedrijf Antwerpen and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Concept of economic activity — Services of general economic interest — Non-economic activities — Separable nature — Selective nature — Request for a transitional period)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Flanders (Belgium), State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, economic activity, harbour installation, services of general interest, tax exemption








C_2019406EN.01002601.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/26






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Havenbedrijf Antwerpen and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven v Commission
(Case T-696/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Separable nature - Selective nature - Request for a transitional period)
(2019/C 406/34)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV (Antwerp, Belgium), Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven NV (Zeebrugge, Belgium) (represented by P. Wytinck, W. Panis and I. Letten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven NV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9433 — MEIF 6 Fibre/KCOM Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology, merger control, telecommunications








C_2019316EN.01000901.xml










20.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9433 — MEIF 6 Fibre/KCOM Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 316/08)

1.   
On 13 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:






—


MEIF 6 Fibre Limited (‘MEIF 6 Fibre’, United Kingdom), controlled by Macquarie Group Limited (‘Macquarie’, Australia),










—


KCOM Group Public Limited Company (‘KCOM Group’, United Kingdom).




MEIF 6 Fibre acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of KCOM Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 3 June 2019.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for MEIF 6 Fibre: an investment fund that belongs to Macquarie. Macquarie is a diversified financial group that has established leading positions as a global specialist in a wide range of sectors, including as investor in telecommunications infrastructure since the early 2000s,
—   for KCOM Group: a provider of IT and communications solutions to consumers and businesses in the UK, primarily in the Hull and East Yorkshire area of North-East England.


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.9433 — MEIF 6 Fibre/KCOM Group
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 T-553/16: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — von Blumenthal and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB Staff — Remuneration — Annual adjustment of the scale of basic salaries — Calculation method — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, monthly pay, pay, wage determination








C_2019413EN.01005202.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/52






Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — von Blumenthal and Others v EIB
(Case T-553/16) (1)

(Civil service - EIB Staff - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the scale of basic salaries - Calculation method - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 413/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Henry von Blumenthal and Others (Bergem, Luxembourg) and the 369 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and J. Klein, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, annulment of the decisions contained in the salary slips for the month of February 2015 and the subsequent months applying to the applicants the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors dated 16 December 2014 and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee dated 4 February 2015, and of the article published online on 6 February 2015 and the information note dated 10 February 2015 informing staff of the adoption of that latter decision and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the order







1.



Formal note is taken of the withdrawal of Mr Dominique Courbin from the proceedings.











2.



There is no further need to adjudicate on the action of Mr Henry von Blumenthal and the applicants other than Mr Courbin whose names are set out in the annex.











3.



The European Investment Bank (EIB) shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-78/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-650/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark REAKTOR — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Direct and specific relationship with the goods and services covered by the trade mark application)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, consultancy, data processing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01005201.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/52






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)
(Case T-650/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark REAKTOR - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Direct and specific relationship with the goods and services covered by the trade mark application)
(2019/C 413/62)
Language of the case: Finnish

Parties


Applicant: Reaktor Group Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2018 (Case R 2626/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign REAKTOR as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 (Case R 2626/2017-2) in so far as, by that decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;











2.



Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the unavoidable costs incurred by Reaktor Group Oy for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.







(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Case T-673/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Concept of economic activity — Services of general economic interest — Non-economic activities — Severability — Selectivity — Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, Walloon region (Belgium), control of State aid, corporation tax, economic activity, harbour installation, services of general interest, tax exemption








C_2019406EN.01002401.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/24






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission
(Case T-673/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Severability - Selectivity - Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)
(2019/C 406/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi, (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium), Région wallonne (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, Port autonome de Namur, Port autonome de Charleroi, Port autonome de Liège and Région wallonne to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Case T-306/18: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Hungary v Commission
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European citizenship, aid to refugees, integration of migrants, petition, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2019399EN.01010401.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/104






Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-306/18) (1)

(2019/C 399/124)
Language of the case: Hungarian
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case C-696/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Mr Andreas Hauzenberger against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-349/18, Andreas Hauzenberger v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic component, engine, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2020061EN.01001702.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/17






Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Mr Andreas Hauzenberger against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-349/18, Andreas Hauzenberger v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-696/19 P)
(2020/C 61/21)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Andreas Hauzenberger (represented by: B. Bittner, Rechtsanwalt, U. Heinrich, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 19 December 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Case T-67/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark DOKKIO — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, data processing, information system, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019406EN.01003301.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/33






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)
(Case T-67/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DOKKIO - Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 406/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska, 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: Dokkio, Inc. (San Mateo, California, United States) (represented by: A. Kylhammar and L. Morin, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2018 (Case R 1187/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sixsigma Networks Mexico and Dokkio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Communication pursuant to Article 37(2) of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 concerning the composition of the Conciliation Body, instituted in the context of the clearance of accounts of EAGF and the EAFRD
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, appointment of members, closing of accounts








C_2019316EN.01000601.xml










20.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/6






Communication pursuant to Article 37(2) of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 concerning the composition of the Conciliation Body, instituted in the context of the clearance of accounts of EAGF and the EAFRD
(2019/C 316/06)
The composition of the Conciliation Body is as follows:







Chairperson:


Mr Herman HOOYBERGHS








—


reappointed for the period 1.8.2019 – 31.7.2020








Members:


Mrs Kärt VAHTRA








—


appointed for the period 1.8.2019 – 31.7.2022








 


Mr Patrick EVANS








—


appointed for the period 1.8.2019 – 31.7.2022








 


Mr Matthias REEH








—


reappointed for the period 1.8.2019 – 31.7.2020








 


Mr Godfried THISSEN








—


reappointed for the period 1.8.2019 – 31.7.2020.
Case T-433/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union (Access to documents — Court of Justice of the European Union — Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions — Application for access submitted by a former judge of the General Court — Partial refusal of access — Non-contractual liability of the European Union)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, indemnification








C_2019399EN.01004202.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/42






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-433/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Court of Justice of the European Union - Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions - Application for access submitted by a former judge of the General Court - Partial refusal of access - Non-contractual liability of the European Union)
(2019/C 399/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 and 22 May 2017 rejecting the applications for access to certain documents, submitted by the applicant on 27 January 2017 and 14 December 2016 respectively, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Court of Justice of the European Union when it refused to grant his applications for access to information, submitted between 15 July and 10 August 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of 18 May 2017 which rejected the second confirmatory application for access to certain documents made by Mr Franklin Dehousse, to the extent that that decision refused access to ‘exchanges, in both directions, between President Skouris, or his Head of Cabinet, and all German public authorities between 2011 and 2015 inclusive’;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders each party to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.