do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-643/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark DermoFaes — Earlier EU word mark Dermowas — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, chemical product, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, preservative, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020019EN.01004602.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/46






Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)
(Case T-643/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DermoFaes - Earlier EU word mark Dermowas - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 19/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and S. Fernandez Malvar, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 (Case R 1842/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. August Wolff and Faes Farma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Faes Farma, SA, including those necessarily incurred by Faes Farma, SA, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.







(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Case C-591/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2019 — Brugg Kabel AG, Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Distortion of the evidence)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, proof, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2020036EN.01001101.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/11






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2019 — Brugg Kabel AG, Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v European Commission
(Case C-591/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Distortion of the evidence)
(2020/C 36/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Brugg Kabel AG, Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (represented by: A. Rinne, M. Lichtenegger and S. Schricker, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-872/19 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2019 by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2019 in Case T-65/18, Venezuela v Council
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2020045EN.01002701.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/27






Appeal brought on 28 November 2019 by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2019 in Case T-65/18, Venezuela v Council
(Case C-872/19 P)
(2020/C 45/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it dismissed the action as inadmissible;










—


declare the action brought by the appellant admissible and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a sole ground of appeal divided into three limbs.
The General Court wrongly interpreted the criterion of direct concern provided for in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in light of Almaz-Antey case law:






1.


The General Court applied the wrong test to assess whether the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is directly concerned by the contested provisions (1).










2.


The General Court erred in law since it overlooked some essential circumstances of the present case when applying the direct concern criterion as established in Almaz-Antey.










3.


The General Court neglected to consider the factual effects of the contested provisions on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2017, L 295, p. 60).
Case T-323/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Banco Cooperativo Español v SRB (Economic and Monetary Union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Decision of the SRB on the 2016 ex-ante contributions — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Essential procedural requirements — Authentication of the decision — Procedure for the adoption of the decision)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, company in difficulties, financial instrument, financial legislation, financing plan, principle of proportionality, right of establishment








C_2020036EN.01002101.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/21






Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Banco Cooperativo Español v SRB
(Case T-323/16) (1)

(Economic and Monetary Union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the 2016 ex-ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Procedure for the adoption of the decision)
(2020/C 36/25)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Banco Cooperativo Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and J. Beltrán de Lubiano Sáez de Urabain, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Rius, A. Steiblytė and K.-P. Wojcik, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) to the extent that it concerns Banco Cooperativo Español, SA;











2.



orders Banco Cooperativo Español and the SRB to bear their own costs;











3.



orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case C-722/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie, XXIII Wydział Gospodarczy Odwoławczy, Poland) — KROL — Zakład Robót Wodno-Kanalizacyjnych Sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Porr S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2000/35/EC — Article 1 and Article 6(3) — Scope — National legislation — Commercial transactions financed by the EU Structural Funds and by the EU Cohesion Fund — Exclusion)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Structural Funds, commercial transaction, damages, deadline for payment, financial transaction, regulation of transactions








C_2020036EN.01001401.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/14






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie, XXIII Wydział Gospodarczy Odwoławczy, Poland) — KROL — Zakład Robót Wodno-Kanalizacyjnych Sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Porr S.A.
(Case C-722/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2000/35/EC - Article 1 and Article 6(3) - Scope - National legislation - Commercial transactions financed by the EU Structural Funds and by the EU Cohesion Fund - Exclusion)
(2020/C 36/18)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie, XXIII Wydział Gospodarczy Odwoławczy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KROL — Zakład Robót Wodno-Kanalizacyjnych Sp. z o.o., sp.k.

Defendant: Porr S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 and Article 6(3) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which commercial transactions financed in whole or in part by resources from the EU Structural Funds and the EU Cohesion Fund are excluded from the benefit of the compensation for late payment provided for by that directive.


(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case T-667/18: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS (Civil service — Rights and obligations of officials — Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Article 16 of the Staff Regulations — Risk of incompatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution — Deadline for responding to the declaration of intention — Implicit acceptance — Prohibition on engaging in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Non-material damage)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, change of job, conflict of interest, damages, staff regulations (EU), termination of employment








C_2020036EN.01002702.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/27






Order of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS
(Case T-667/18) ( (1))
(Civil service - Rights and obligations of officials - Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service - Article 16 of the Staff Regulations - Risk of incompatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution - Deadline for responding to the declaration of intention - Implicit acceptance - Prohibition on engaging in an occupational activity after leaving the service - Non-material damage)
(2020/C 36/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: José Manuel Pinto Teixeira (Oeiras, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 21 February 2018 prohibiting the applicant from engaging in an outside activity pursuant to Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the damage that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part







1)



The decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 21 February 2018 prohibiting Mr José Manuel Pinto Teixeira from engaging in an outside activity, pursuant to Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, is annulled.











2)



The action is dismissed as to the remainder.











3)



Each party shall pay its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Case T-365/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Portigon v SRB (Economic and Monetary Union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Decision of the SRB on the 2016 ex-ante contributions — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Essential procedural requirements — Authentication of the decision — Procedure for the adoption of the decision — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial legislation, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), investment company, payment








C_2020036EN.01002201.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/22






Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Portigon v SRB
(Case T-365/16) (1)

(Economic and Monetary Union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the 2016 ex-ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Procedure for the adoption of the decision - Obligation to state reasons)
(2020/C 36/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind and F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-P. Wojcik, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern Portigon AG;











2.



orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Portigon;











3.



orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
Case T-736/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Bergsteiger — Earlier Benelux word marks and EU figurative and word marks BERG — Relative ground for refusal — Article 47(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Admissibility of a request for proof of genuine use — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2020027EN.01003301.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/33






Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger)
(Case T-736/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Bergsteiger - Earlier Benelux word marks and EU figurative and word marks BERG - Relative ground for refusal - Article 47(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Admissibility of a request for proof of genuine use - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 27/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Runnebaum Invest GmbH (Diepholz, Germany) (represented by: W. Prinz, 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: Berg Toys Beheer BV (Ede, Netherlands) (represented by: E. van Gelderen, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 (Case R 572/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Berg Toys Beheer and Runnebaum Invest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 October 2018 (Case R 572/2018-4);











2.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Runnebaum Invest GmbH;











3.



Orders Berg Toys Beheer BV to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9671 — Apollo/Blue Group) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 402/10
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, investment company, merger control, retail trade, supplier








C_2019402EN.01002501.xml










28.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/25






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9671 — Apollo/Blue Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 402/10)

1.   
On 20 November 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:






—


Apollo Capital Management, L.P. (‘Apollo’, United States of America).










—


Blue Group Hold Co Limited (‘Blue Group’, United Kingdom).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Apollo: investments in companies and debt issued by companies involved in various businesses throughout the world,










—


for Blue Group: retail supply of home furniture in the United Kingdom under the brands Harveys Furniture and Bensons for Beds.






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.9671 — Apollo/Blue 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-665/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Soundio v EUIPO — Telefónica Germany (Vibble) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Vibble — Earlier German word mark vybe — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, broadcasting, computer equipment, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020027EN.01003201.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/32






Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Soundio v EUIPO — Telefónica Germany (Vibble)
(Case T-665/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Vibble - Earlier German word mark vybe - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 27/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Soundio A/S (Drammen, Norway) (represented by: N. Köster and J. Albers, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2018 (Case R 721/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH and Soundio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action.











2.



Orders Soundio A/S to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.