do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-693/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 – Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO – Ornua (KERRYMAID)
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, milk product, prepared foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01005901.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/59






Action brought on 9 October 2019 – Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO – Ornua (KERRYMAID)
(Case T-693/19)
(2019/C 413/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade word mark KERRYMAID – Application for registration No 10 083 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2019 in Case R 2473/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision to the extent that the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of 22 October 2013 of the Opposition Division in Case B 1 938 417 was dismissed;










—


dismiss the opposition brought by Ornua Co-operative Ltd against the registration of the EU trade mark KERRYMAID, No. 10 083 251;










—


order EUIPO and Ornua Co-operative Ltd, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/1725 of 9 October 2019 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications Telemea de Sibiu (PGI)
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Romania, Sibiu, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, semi-soft cheese, sheep's milk cheese








L_2019263EN.01000101.xml










16.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 263/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/1725
of 9 October 2019
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Telemea de Sibiu’ (PGI)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Romania’s application to register the name ‘Telemea de Sibiu’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Telemea de Sibiu’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Telemea de Sibiu’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. — Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 October 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 203, 17.6.2019, p. 7.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-694/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, civil union, cohabitation, discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, marriage, married person, survivor's benefit








C_2019399EN.01010201.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/102






Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission
(Case T-694/19)
(2019/C 399/121)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FI (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 8 March 2019, the decision of 1 April 2019, and the decision of 12 August 2019;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the Commission’s decisions of 8 March, 1 April and 12 August 2019 refusing to grant him a survivor’s pension, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 to 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) are unlawful because they are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminate on the grounds of age, the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together, and disability.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in applying Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted those provisions as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error in interpreting the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the evolution of Western society calls for a broad interpretation of that concept.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from a failure to take account of the applicant’s individual situation. The applicant argues in that regard, first, that he lived with his wife for more than 19 years and, second, that their marriage lasted 4 years, 7 months and 8 days.
Case T-607/18: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a leaf — Absolute ground for refusal — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01005401.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/54






Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)
(Case T-607/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a leaf - Absolute ground for refusal - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 423/68)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 (Case R 2196/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a leaf as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Case C-548/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Article 14 — Assignment of claims — Third-party effects)
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, private international law








C_2019423EN.01001401.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/14






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg
(Case C-548/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Article 14 - Assignment of claims - Third-party effects)
(2019/C 423/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BGL BNP Paribas SA

Defendant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as not designating, directly or by analogy, the applicable law concerning the third-party effects of the assignment of a claim in the event of multiple assignments of the claim by the same creditor to successive assignees.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 8 October 20192019/C 341/03
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019341EN.01000301.xml










9.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 October 2019
(2019/C 341/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0986 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,43 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4689 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89795 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8703 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0898 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0450 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,805 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,57 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3326 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7486 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,4120 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6286 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4623 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6178 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7373 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5168 




KRW


South Korean won


1 316,41 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7732 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8474 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4243 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 550,68 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6070 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,955 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,6225 




THB


Thai baht


33,403 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5073 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5316 




INR


Indian rupee


78,1440 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9524 — Fortress Investment Group/Majestic Wine Warehouses/Les Celliers De Calais) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 341/05
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2019341EN.01000501.xml










9.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9524 — Fortress Investment Group/Majestic Wine Warehouses/Les Celliers De Calais)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 341/05)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


Fortress Investment Group LLC (‘Fortress Investment’, USA),










—


Majestic Wine Warehouses Limited (‘Majestic Wine Warehouses’, UK) and Les Celliers de Calais S.A.S (‘Les Celliers de Calais’, France).




Fortress Investment acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Majestic Wine Warehouses and Les Celliers de Calais.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Fortress Investment: an investment management firm,










—


for Majestic Wine Warehouses and Les Celliers de Calais: retailers of wine, beer, spirits and other beverages.






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.9524 — Fortress Investment Group/Majestic Wine Warehouses/Les Celliers De Calais
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9405 — CPF/Itochu/HyLife) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 349/01
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: animal breeding, animal feedingstuffs, aquaculture, economic concentration, information technology, meat processing industry, merger control, retail trade, swine, textile industry








C_2019349EN.01000101.xml










15.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9405 — CPF/Itochu/HyLife)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 349/01)
On 9 October 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 32019M9405. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9551 — Toyota/Panasonic/Prime Life Technologies JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 352/02
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual equipment, audiovisual industry, building industry, economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control, motor vehicle industry, real estate business, social facilities








C_2019352EN.01000201.xml










18.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9551 — Toyota/Panasonic/Prime Life Technologies JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 352/02)
On 9 October 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 32019M9551. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-713/18: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ESIM Chemicals — Earlier national word mark ESKIM — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, preservative, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01005501.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/55






Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)
(Case T-713/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ESIM Chemicals - Earlier national word mark ESKIM - Relative ground for refusal - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2019/C 423/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Esim Chemicals GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: I. Rungg and I. Innerhofer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite SpA (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 (Case R 1267/2018-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite and Esim Chemicals.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Esim Chemicals GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9394 — Echostar/Mubadala/HPE JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 398/01
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, economic concentration, information technology, merger control, provision of services, satellite, transmission network








C_2019398EN.01000101.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9394 — Echostar/Mubadala/HPE JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 398/01)
On 9 October 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 32019M9394. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union2019/C 341/04
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, fish product








C_2019341EN.01000401.xml










9.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/4






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2019/C 341/04)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 34, after the Explanatory note to subheading ‘0305 10 00 Flours, meals and pellets of fish, fit for human consumption’, the following text is inserted:








‘0305 20 00



Livers, roes and milt of fish, dried, smoked, salted or in brine

This subheading includes, inter alia, salted hard roes intended for the manufacture of caviar or caviar substitutes.
These roes are unsuitable for immediate consumption as caviar or caviar substitutes. Although they might be intended for human consumption, they are not consumable as caviar or caviar substitutes in the state as presented without further processing. Such processing includes for instance additional cleaning to remove adherent organs or rinsing to lower the salt content in order to render the product suitable for human consumption.
This subheading excludes hard roes suitable for immediate consumption as caviar or caviar substitutes (heading 1604).’






On page 81, after the Explanatory note to subheading ‘1604 20 05 Preparations of surimi’, the following text is inserted:








‘1604 31 00 and 1604 32 00



Caviar and caviar substitutes

These subheadings also include frozen products.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.