do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-863/19: Action brought on 19 December 2019 — Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic publishing, registered trade mark, software, teaching materials, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01005201.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/52






Action brought on 19 December 2019 — Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD)
(Case T-863/19)
(2020/C 61/66)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Production Christian Gallimard (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union word mark ‘PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD’ — Application for registration No 15 299 589

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 in Case R 2316/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application and the annexes admissible;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the company Éditions Gallimard (if that company intervenes in the present proceedings) to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-504/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — XG v Commission (Staff of a private company providing IT services within the institution — Refusal to grant access to the Commission’s premises — Competence of the author of the act)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fundamental rights, information technology profession, public building








C_2020054EN.01005001.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/50






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — XG v Commission
(Case T-504/18) (1)

(Staff of a private company providing IT services within the institution - Refusal to grant access to the Commission’s premises - Competence of the author of the act)
(2020/C 54/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: XG (represented by: S. Kaisergruber and A. Burghelle-Vernet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and T. Bohr, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2018 maintaining its refusal to allow the applicant access to its premises.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 3 July 2018 maintaining its refusal to allow XG access to its premises;











2.



Orders the Commission to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Case T-22/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Bulgaria v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Bulgaria — Rural development — Quality of on-the-spot checks — Review of eligibility and selection criteria — Financial corrections — Ex post controls — Method for calculating financial corrections — Recurrence — Corrective measures — Conformity clearance procedure — Legal certainty — Principle of sound financial management — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, financial aid, financial management, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rural development








C_2020054EN.01004701.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/47






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Bulgaria v Commission
(Case T-22/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Bulgaria - Rural development - Quality of on-the-spot checks - Review of eligibility and selection criteria - Financial corrections - Ex post controls - Method for calculating financial corrections - Recurrence - Corrective measures - Conformity clearance procedure - Legal certainty - Principle of sound financial management - Proportionality)
(2020/C 54/51)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and L. Zaharieva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, G. Koleva and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case T-501/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl (CINKCIARZ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CINKCIARZ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Pejorative term relating to the goods or services at issue)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, computer equipment, gaming, publishing, recording equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01002701.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/27






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl (CINKCIARZ)
(Case T-501/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CINKCIARZ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Pejorative term relating to the goods or services at issue)
(2020/C 61/32)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Currency One S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: P. Szmidt and B. Jóźwiak, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2018 (Case R 2598/2017-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Currency One and Cinkciarz.pl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Currency One S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o.







(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Case C-592/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Darie BV v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Article 3(1)(a) and (c) — Concept of ‘biocidal product’ — Concept of ‘active substance’ — Bacterial product containing the bacterial species Bacillus ferment — Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action — Indirect action — Period within which effect takes place)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biocide, chemical product, market approval, marketing standard, microorganism, pest








C_2020068EN.01001301.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/13






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Darie BV v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
(Case C-592/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Article 3(1)(a) and (c) - Concept of ‘biocidal product’ - Concept of ‘active substance’ - Bacterial product containing the bacterial species Bacillus ferment - Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action - Indirect action - Period within which effect takes place)
(2020/C 68/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Darie BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products must be interpreted as covering products containing one or more bacterial species, enzymes or other constituents which, due to the specific way in which they act, have no direct effect on the harmful organism for which they are intended, but on the creation or maintenance of a potential habitat of that harmful organism, provided that those products involve an action other than mere physical or mechanical action, which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms;










2.


Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 528/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a product must be applied to the surface to be treated only after the removal of target harmful organisms present on that surface does not affect the classification of that product as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of that provision;










3.


Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 528/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the period within which a product takes effect does not affect the classification of that product as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of that provision.






(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Case T-690/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Vita — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01003002.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/30






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)
(Case T-690/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Vita - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Res judicata)
(2020/C 61/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

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: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 (Case R 695/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

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 10 September 2018 (Case R 695/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio, SA and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd;











2.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.







(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case T-457/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Zotkov v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual agents — Remuneration — Family benefits — Request to treat a person as a dependent child — Conditions of grant — Factors to take into account in the calculation of maintenance expenditure — Error in law)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: child, dependant, family benefit, servant (EU)








C_2020061EN.01002601.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/26






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Zotkov v Commission
(Case T-457/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Family benefits - Request to treat a person as a dependent child - Conditions of grant - Factors to take into account in the calculation of maintenance expenditure - Error in law)
(2020/C 61/31)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Rosen D. Zotkov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Stankov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for the grant of the allowance for a person treated as a dependent child and, second, review by the Commission of that decision, after correction of the financial calculation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Rosen D. Zotkov to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Case T-383/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Sta*Ware EDV Beratung v EUIPO — Accelerate IT Consulting (businessNavi) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark businessNavi — Genuine use of the mark — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, computer system, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020054EN.01004901.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/49






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Sta*Ware EDV Beratung v EUIPO — Accelerate IT Consulting (businessNavi)
(Case T-383/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark businessNavi - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 54/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sta*Ware EDV Beratung GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Bölling and M. Graf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Accelerate IT Consulting GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2018 (Case R 434/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Sta*Ware EDV Beratung and Accelerate IT Consulting.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Sta*Ware EDV Beratung GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Case C-757/18 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Lack of locus standi — Person not individually concerned — Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, State aid, control of State aid, integration of people with disabilities, limitation of legal proceedings, worker with disabilities








C_2020068EN.01002401.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/24






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) v European Commission
(Case C-757/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Lack of locus standi - Person not individually concerned - Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
(2020/C 68/24)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: M Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) (represented by: L. Ravasz, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.










2.


M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Joined Cases C-453/18 and C-494/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona — Spain) — Bondora AS v Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Provision of additional documents to support the claim — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Review by the court seised in the context of an application for a European payment order)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer credit, consumer protection, loan, proof, unfair terms of contract








C_2020068EN.01001101.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona — Spain) — Bondora AS v Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18)
(Joined Cases C-453/18 and C-494/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Provision of additional documents to support the claim - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Review by the court seised in the context of an application for a European payment order)
(2020/C 68/07)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendants: Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2)(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure and Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as interpreted by the Court and read in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as allowing a ‘court’, within the meaning of that regulation, seised in the context of a European order for payment procedure, to request from the creditor additional information relating to the terms of the agreement relied on in support of the claim at issue, in order to carry out an ex officio review of the possible unfairness of those terms and, consequently, that they preclude national legislation which declares the additional documents provided for that purpose to be inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
Case C-263/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Nederlands Uitgeversverbond, Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV, Tom Kabinet Holding BV, Tom Kabinet Uitgeverij BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Right of communication to the public — Making available — Article 4 — Distribution right — Exhaustion — Electronic books (e-books) — Virtual market for ‘second-hand’ e-books)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: book trade, copyright, electronic publishing, information society, literary and artistic property, used goods








C_2020061EN.01000501.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Nederlands Uitgeversverbond, Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV, Tom Kabinet Holding BV, Tom Kabinet Uitgeverij BV
(Case C-263/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Right of communication to the public - Making available - Article 4 - Distribution right - Exhaustion - Electronic books (e-books) - Virtual market for ‘second-hand’ e-books)
(2020/C 61/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Nederlands Uitgeversverbond, Groep Algemene Uitgevers

Defendants: Tom Kabinet Internet BV, Tom Kabinet Holding BV, Tom Kabinet Uitgeverij BV

Operative part of the judgment

The supply to the public by downloading, for permanent use, of an e-book is covered by the concept of ‘communication to the public’ and, more specifically, by that of ‘making available to the public of [authors’] works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.