do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-343/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SONANCE — Earlier national word mark conlance — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer equipment, electricity storage device, mobile phone, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, video surveillance








C_2020175EN.01002101.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/21






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE)
(Case T-343/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SONANCE - Earlier national word mark conlance - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 175/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Conlance GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

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: LG Electronics, Inc (Seoul, South Korea)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 (Case R 1085/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Conlance and LG Electronics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Conlance GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case T-653/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark GIORGIO ARMANI le sac 11 — Earlier national word mark LESAC and earlier national figurative marks lesac — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020209EN.01002201.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/22






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11)
(Case T-653/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GIORGIO ARMANI le sac 11 - Earlier national word mark LESAC and earlier national figurative marks lesac - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 209/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

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: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 (Case R 2462/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Asunción and Giorgio Armani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Giorgio Armani SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9316 – Peab/YIT’s paving and mineral aggregates business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 217/02
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2020217EN.01001001.xml










1.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/10






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9316 – Peab/YIT’s paving and mineral aggregates business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 217/02)
On 26 March 2020, 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 32020M9316. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to the Notice of initiation concerning a review of the safeguard measures applicable to imports of certain steel products (Official Journal of the European Union C 51 of 14 February 2020) 2020/C 99/09
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, tariff quota, third country








C_2020099EN.01002501.xml










26.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/25






Corrigendum to the Notice of initiation concerning a review of the safeguard measures applicable to imports of certain steel products

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 51 of 14 February 2020
)

(2020/C 99/09)
On page 25, in the Annex:
for:







‘Product Number


Product category




1


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Hot Rolled Sheets and Strips




2


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Cold Rolled Sheets




3.A


Electrical Sheets (other than GOES)




3.B




4.A


Metallic Coated Sheets




4.B




5


Organic Coated Sheets




6


Tin Mill products




7


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Quarto Plates




8


Stainless Hot Rolled Sheets and Strips




9


Stainless Cold Rolled Sheets and Strips




10


Stainless Hot Rolled Quarto Plates




12


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Merchant Bars and Light Sections




13


Rebars




14


Stainless Bars and Light Sections




15


Stainless Wire Rod




16


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Wire Rod




17


Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non Alloy Steel




18


Sheet Piling




19


Railway Material




20


Gas pipes




21


Hollow sections




22


Seamless Stainless Tubes and Pipes




24


Other Seamless Tubes




25


Large welded tubes




27


Non-alloy and other alloy cold finished bars




28


Non Alloy Wire’





read:







‘Product Number


Product category




1


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Hot Rolled Sheets and Strips




2


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Cold Rolled Sheets




3.A


Electrical Sheets (other than GOES)




3.B




4.A


Metallic Coated Sheets




4.B




5


Organic Coated Sheets




6


Tin Mill products




7


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Quarto Plates




8


Stainless Hot Rolled Sheets and Strips




9


Stainless Cold Rolled Sheets and Strips




10


Stainless Hot Rolled Quarto Plates




12


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Merchant Bars and Light Sections




13


Rebars




14


Stainless Bars and Light Sections




15


Stainless Wire Rod




16


Non Alloy and Other Alloy Wire Rod




17


Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non Alloy Steel




18


Sheet Piling




19


Railway Material




20


Gas pipes




21


Hollow sections




22


Seamless Stainless Tubes and Pipes




24


Other Seamless Tubes




25


Large welded tubes




26


Other welded pipes




27


Non-alloy and other alloy cold finished bars




28


Non Alloy Wire’
Case T-188/20: Action brought on 26 March 2020 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, building, damages, improvement of housing, tendering, works contract








C_2020262EN.01002701.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/27






Action brought on 26 March 2020 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament
(Case T-188/20)
(2020/C 262/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium) and Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Rikkers and J. Teheux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


provisionally order the European Union, represented by the European Parliament, to pay compensation estimated at EUR 3 906 043 plus interest at the statutory rate from the date on which the damage arose, namely 27 March 2015;










—


before ruling on the action, the applicants seek a stay of proceedings pending the judgment of the Court of Justice in the proceedings currently pending in Case C-447/19 and, if appropriate, of the General Court in the event of a referral;










—


reserve ruling on the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim that, if the appeal seeking to have set aside the judgment of 9 April 2019 (Case C-447/19, Close and Cegelec v Parliament) were upheld, it would have to entail the annulment of the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament to award the public works contract concerning the ‘Project for the extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’, lot 73 (power station), reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4, to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD (composed of the companies MERSCH and SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX S. A) and, correlatively, not to have chosen the applicants’ tender, it follows that, firstly, the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD could not be selected and that, secondly, the applicants, having submitted the lowest tender, should have been awarded the contract, the award of the contract being based solely on the criterion of price. The damage suffered is provisionally assessed at 10 % of the amount of their tender.
Joined Cases C-558/18 and C-563/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi and the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Miasto Łowicz v Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Łódzki (C-558/18) and Prokurator Generalny, represented by the Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly the Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku v VX, WW, XV (C-563/18) (References for a preliminary ruling — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law — Principle of judicial independence — Disciplinary regime applicable to national judges — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 267 TFUE — Admissibility — Interpretation necessary for the referring court to be able to give judgment — Meaning)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disciplinary proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judge, jurisdiction, right to justice, rule of law








C_2020215EN.01001001.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/10






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi and the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Miasto Łowicz v Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Łódzki (C-558/18) and Prokurator Generalny, represented by the Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly the Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku v VX, WW, XV (C-563/18)
(Joined Cases C-558/18 and C-563/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law - Principle of judicial independence - Disciplinary regime applicable to national judges - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 267 TFUE - Admissibility - Interpretation necessary for the referring court to be able to give judgment - Meaning)
(2020/C 215/11)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi, Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


(Case C-558/18)


Applicant: Miasto Łowicz

Defendant: Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Łódzki

In the presence of: Prokurator Generalny, represented by the Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly the Prokuratura Regionalna w Łodzi, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

(Case C-563/18)


Applicant: Prokurator Generalny, represented by the Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly the Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

Defendants: VX, WW, XV

Operative part of the judgment

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Regional Court, Łódź, Poland) and by the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Regional Court, Warsaw, Poland), by decisions of 31 August 2018 and 4 September 2018, are inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 99/06
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: carcinogenic substance, chemical compound, chemical product, chromium, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, medical device, metal coating








C_2020099EN.01000601.xml










26.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/6






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)


(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 99/06)

Decision granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised uses


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2020)1655


19 March 2020


chromium trioxide EC No 215-607-8; CAS No 1333-82-0


HAPOC GmbH & Co KG, S.A, In der Neuen Welt 8, 87700, Memmingen, Germany


REACH/19/41/0


Use in solid form and in aqueous solution of any composition to modify the properties of surfaces made of brass or bronze for medical engineering products, exclusively for the final preparation of such surfaces and the transparent plating of an interior housing part of an anaesthesia evaporator for further incorporation into anaesthetic machines for hospitals and clinics


21 September 2029


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm