do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-284/20: Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Klaus Berthold v EUIPO — Thomann (HB Harley Benton)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020222EN.01003601.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/36






Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Klaus Berthold v EUIPO — Thomann (HB Harley Benton)
(Case T-284/20)
(2020/C 222/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG (Thalhausen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomann GmbH (Burgebrach, Germany)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark HB Harley Benton — International registration designating the European Union No 1 380 752

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2020 in Case R 1359/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the opposition against the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25;










—


order EUIPO to refuse the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25;










—


order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and, if appropriate, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol to amend the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (13447/2019 — C9-0187/2019 — 2019/0225(NLE))
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: Committee on Fisheries, Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, conservation of fish stocks, fishing agreement, fishing area, international convention, protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2021323EN.01002701.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 323/27






P9_TA(2020)0063
Amending the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) — Protocol ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol to amend the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (13447/2019 — C9-0187/2019 — 2019/0225(NLE))
(Consent)
(2021/C 323/12)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (13447/2019),










—


having regard to the Protocol to amend the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (13446/2019),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0187/2019),










—


having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0089/2020),












1.


Gives its consent to the conclusion of the Protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Executive Secretariat of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
Case T-63/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Rot Front v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН) (EU trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark РОШЕН — Earlier international figurative mark РОМАШКИ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003601.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/36






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Rot Front v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН)
(Case T-63/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark РОШЕН - Earlier international figurative mark РОМАШКИ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 215/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 (Case R 1872/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Rot Front and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 November 2018 (Case R 1872/2018-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Rot Front OAO;










3.


Orders Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case T-172/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Cognac Ferrand v EUIPO (Shape of braiding on a bottle) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of braiding on a bottle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003901.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/39






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Cognac Ferrand v EUIPO (Shape of braiding on a bottle)
(Case T-172/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of braiding on a bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 215/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Cognac Ferrand (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 (Case R 1640/2018-2) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of braiding on a bottle as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cognac Ferrand to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Case T-716/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Germanwings v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Aid granted by Italy in favour of Sardinian airports — Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Imputability to the State — Beneficiaries — Advantage for co-contracting airlines — Market economy operator principle — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Obligation to state reasons — Aid scheme — De minimis aid — Recovery)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, State aid, airport, control of State aid, public transport, reimbursement of aid, services of general interest








C_2020215EN.01002602.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/26






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Germanwings v Commission
(Case T-716/17) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Aid granted by Italy in favour of Sardinian airports - Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Imputability to the State - Beneficiaries - Advantage for co-contracting airlines - Market economy operator principle - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Obligation to state reasons - Aid scheme - De minimis aid - Recovery)
(2020/C 215/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Germanwings GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA 33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Germanwings GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Case T-443/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01002902.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/29






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-443/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)
(2020/C 215/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 1362/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Case T-446/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003201.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/32






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-446/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)
(2020/C 215/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 1589/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2020 (OJ C 107, 31.3.2020)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts








C_2020165EN.01002901.xml










13.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/29






Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2020
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 107 of 31 March 2020
)
(2020/C 165/06)
On page 51, Chapters 1 1, 1 5, 1 6, 1 7, 1 8 and 1 9:
for:













Title Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2020


Appropriations 2019


Appropriations 2018




Commitments


Payments


Commitments


Payments


Commitments


Payments




‘[…]


[…]


 


 


 


 


 


 




1 1


STAFF EXPENDITURE


44 398 000 


44 398 000 


41 353 653 


41 353 653 


39 574 070,72 


39 084 826,41 




[…]


[…]


 


 


 


 


 


 




1 5


EXCHANGE OF OFFICIALS AND EXPERTS


—


—


797 440 


797 440 


647 136,31 


647 136,31 




1 6


TRAINING


500 000 


500 000 


—


—


0 ,—


0 ,—




1 7


SOCIAL WELFARE


1 455 000 


1 455 000 


1 325 000 


1 325 000 


1 243 543,67 


1 238 334,42 




1 8


RECEPTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES


 


 


8 000 


8 000 


5 327,02 


2 861,02 




1 9


EXTERNAL SERVICES


1 431 000 


1 431 000 


—


—


0 ,—


0 ,—’





read:













Title Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2020


Appropriations 2019


Appropriations 2018




Commitments


Payments


Commitments


Payments


Commitments


Payments




‘[…]


[…]


 


 


 


 


 


 




1 1


STAFF EXPENDITURE


44 398 000 


44 398 000 


42 151 093 


42 151 093 


40 221 207,03 


39 731 962,72 




[…]


[…]


 


 


 


 


 


 




1 5


TRAINING


500 000 


500 000 


—


—


0 ,—


0 ,—




1 6


SOCIAL WELFARE


1 455 000 


1 455 000 


1 325 000 


1 325 000 


1 243 543,67 


1 238 334,42 




1 7


RECEPTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES


 


 


8 000 


8 000 


5 327,02 


2 861,02 




1 8


EXTERNAL SERVICES


1 431 000 


1 431 000 


—


—


0 ,—


0 ,—’
Case T-532/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral v EUIPO (pantys) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark pantys — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, retail trade, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01004201.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/42






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral v EUIPO (pantys)
(Case T-532/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark pantys - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 215/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral Ltda (Sorocaba, Brazil) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 (Case R 314/2019-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative mark pantys as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral Ltda to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case T-445/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003101.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/31






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-445/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)
(2020/C 215/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2018 (Case R 1270/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.