do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-875/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, automatic game, computer equipment, electronic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020129EN.01000301.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/3






Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)
(Case T-875/19)
(2020/C 129/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria)

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 figurative mark Flaming Forties — Application for registration No 16 761 769

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 2321/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the applicant’s European Union trade mark application No 16 761 769 in its entirety or in the alternative, remit the proceedings to the Board of Appeal;










—


order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if acting as intervener, to pay the applicant’s costs;










—


order EUIPO, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is not being allocated to costs, to pay the applicant’s costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9608 — ENGIE/CDC/CNR Solaire 10) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 431/08
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, renewable energy, services of general interest, wind energy








C_2019431EN.01000801.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/8






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9608 — ENGIE/CDC/CNR Solaire 10)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 431/08)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 25 November 2019, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 17 December 2019, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.


(1)  Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 408,4.12.2019, p. 6.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9630 — CDC/Total/JMB Solar Nogara/Quadran Nogara) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 431/03
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, energy production, environmental industry, gas industry, investment company, merger control, oil industry, real estate business, renewable energy








C_2019431EN.01000301.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/3






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9630 — CDC/Total/JMB Solar Nogara/Quadran Nogara)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 431/03)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 25 November 2019, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 17 December 2019, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.


(1)  OJ C 407, 3.12.2019, p. 9.
Case T-874/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, automatic game, computer equipment, electronic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020129EN.01000201.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/2






Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)
(Case T-874/19)
(2020/C 129/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria)

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 word mark Flaming Forties — Application for registration No 16 729 154

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 2304/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the applicant’s European Union trade mark application No 16 729 154 in its entirety or in the alternative, remit the proceedings to the Board of Appeal;










—


order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, if acting as intervener, to pay the applicant’s costs;










—


order EUIPO, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO is not being allocated the costs, to pay the applicant’s 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-878/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Bende v EUIPO — Julius-K9 (K-9)
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01005701.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/57






Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Bende v EUIPO — Julius-K9 (K-9)
(Case T-878/19)
(2020/C 61/72)
Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Gábor Bende (Beloinannisz, Hungary) (represented by: R. Tóth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 Zrt. (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘K-9’ — Application for registration No 12 040 382

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 in Case R 560/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(d) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9694 — Hermes/Iridium/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 6/04
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, service concession, toll








C_2020006EN.01000401.xml










10.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9694 — Hermes/Iridium/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 6/04)
On 23 December 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 32019M9694. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-935/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 December 2019 — Grupa Warzywna Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, fight against crime, principle of proportionality, tax law, tax return








C_2020191EN.01000201.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 December 2019 — Grupa Warzywna Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
(Case C-935/19)
(2020/C 191/02)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Grupa Warzywna Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Question referred

Is an additional tax liability such as that provided for in Article 112b(2) of the Law on VAT compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (in particular Articles 2, 250 and 273 thereof), Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325 TFEU and the principle of proportionality?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-937/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2019 — KA
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, international road transport, international transport, road cabotage, transport company








C_2020095EN.01001801.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2019 — KA
(Case C-937/19)
(2020/C 95/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant: KA

Interveners: Staatsanwaltschaft Köln, Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that there is an incoming international carriage within the meaning of that provision also in the case where that carriage is carried out as part of a carriage in accordance with Article 1(5)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009?


(1)  Regulation on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72).
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 20 December 20192019/C 431/10
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019431EN.01001101.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/11






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 December 2019
(2019/C 431/10)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1097 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4720 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85133 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4340 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0883 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9463 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,445 




HUF


Hungarian forint


330,50 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2593 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7705 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5774 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6088 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4579 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6511 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6811 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5036 




KRW


South Korean won


1 286,58 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7936 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7764 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4390 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 510,83 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5942 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,284 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,9657 




THB


Thai baht


33,496 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5175 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0259 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0035 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-876/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 – Broadcom/Commission
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, dominant position, principle of proportionality, telecommunications equipment








C_2020061EN.01005501.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/55






Action brought on 23 December 2019 – Broadcom/Commission
(Case T-876/19)
(2020/C 61/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Broadcom Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: L. Kjølbye, J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Crocco, lawyers, J. Bourke, and J. Holmes, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Decision in whole or in part; and










—


order the Commission to pay Broadcom’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom) (notified under document C(2019) 7406 final).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact regarding the Commission finding of a prima facie infringement resulting from (a) the Commission’s wrong interpretation of the terms of the agreements which Broadcom concluded with six customers (‘the Agreements’), (b) the Commission’s conclusion that it was not required to consider the Agreements’ likely effects on competition, (c) the Commission’s inadequate assessment of the prima facie capability of the alleged restrictions to restrict competition, and (d) the Commission’s unfounded conclusion that Broadcom is ‘at first sight’ dominant in one of the relevant markets at issue.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the Commission’s finding that the interim measures were urgently needed to address a risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition on any of the relevant markets at issue resulting from (a) the Commission’s introduction of an unknown urgency concept which is only justified by the slow pace of its own proceedings contradicting the measures’ inherently exceptional character, (b) the absence of specific factors supporting an urgent need to take action as the Commission limits itself to referring to a series of generic claims, and (c) the Commission’s failure to show any likely damage to competition in any of the relevant markets.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the Commission’s assessment of proportionality, resulting from the Commission’s failure to assess whether an expedited investigation would be more proportionate than limiting Broadcom’s freedom for a three-year period; and in its balancing of the interests involved.
Publication of the countervalues in national currency of the financial thresholds expressed in euro in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 116/20092019/C 431/11
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, cultural object, economic value, euro, national currency








C_2019431EN.01001201.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/12






Publication of the countervalues in national currency of the financial thresholds expressed in euro in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009
(2019/C 431/11)
Pursuant to the requirement under Annex I (B) of Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 (1), the financial thresholds applicable to certain categories of cultural goods should be converted into the national currencies of those Member States which do not have the euro as their currency and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The countervalues listed hereafter were calculated on the basis of the average daily value of each of the currencies concerned, expressed in euro, during the 24 months ending on the last day of August 2019. These revised values take effect on 31 December 2019.










EUR


1


15 000 


30 000 


50 000 


150 000 




BGN Bulgarian lev


1,9558


29 337 


58 674 


97 790 


293 370 




CZK Czech koruna


25,6765


385 147 


770 294 


1 283 823 


3 851 468 




DKK Danish krone


7,4551


111 827 


223 654 


372 756 


1 118 269 




GBP Pound sterling


0,8847


13 271 


26 542 


44 236 


132 708 




HRK Croatian kuna


7,4322


111 483 


222 965 


371 609 


1 114 827 




HUF Hungarian forint


318,5635


4 778 452 


9 556 904 


15 928 173 


47 784 519 




PLN Polish zloty


4,2693


64 039 


128 079 


213 464 


640 393 




RON Romanian leu


4,6755


70 133 


140 266 


233 777 


701 331 




SEK Swedish krona


10,2689


154 033 


308 066 


513 443 


1 540 329 






(1)  OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1.
Case T-877/19: Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler v EUIPO — Tigges (TOOLINEO)
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, education, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01005601.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/56






Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler v EUIPO — Tigges (TOOLINEO)
(Case T-877/19)
(2020/C 61/71)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Einkaufsbüro Deutscher Eisenhändler GmbH (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tigges Rechtsanwälte and Steuerberater Partnerschaft mbB (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark TOOLINEO — Application for registration No 13 959 481

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2019 in Case R 34/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO 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.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9643 — ENGIE/Versicherungskammer/Portfolio Companies) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 431/07
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy production, gas supply, merger control, personal insurance, property insurance, solar energy








C_2019431EN.01000701.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/7






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9643 — ENGIE/Versicherungskammer/Portfolio Companies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 431/07)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 20 November 2019, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 18 December 2019, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.


(1)  Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 405, 2.12.2019, p. 15.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9586 — SEGRO/PSPIB/7R Projekt 5) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 6/02
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, light industry, logistics, merger control, real estate business, storage








C_2020006EN.01000201.xml










10.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9586 — SEGRO/PSPIB/7R Projekt 5)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 6/02)
On 23 December 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 32019M9586. 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.9653 — Pon Tyre Group/Gilde Fund V/Gundlach Automotive Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 12/02
Date: 2019-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, maintenance, merger control, motor vehicle industry, pneumatic tyre, provision of services, vehicle parts








C_2020012EN.01000401.xml










14.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9653 — Pon Tyre Group/Gilde Fund V/Gundlach Automotive Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 12/02)
On 23 December 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 32019M9653. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.