do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-282/20: Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (APO)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wholesale selling








C_2020215EN.01006101.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/61






Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (APO)
(Case T-282/20)
(2020/C 215/71)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark APO — European Union trade mark No 9 273 103

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 in Case R 982/2019-5

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)(c) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2019 – amending budget No 1 (OJ C 107, 31.3.2020)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: European GNSS Agency
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts








C_2020165EN.01003201.xml










13.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/32






Corrigendum to statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2019 – amending budget No 1
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 107 of 31 March 2020
)
(2020/C 165/08)
On the last page of the table of content:
for:

‘Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2019 – amending budget No 1’,

read:

‘Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 1’.

On page 262, title:
for:

‘Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2019 – amending budget No 1’,

read:

‘Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 1’.
Case T-607/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Volotea v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Aid granted by Italy to Sardinian airports — Decision declaring the aid compatible in part and incompatible in part with the internal market — Whether imputable to the State — Recovery — Beneficiaries — Advantage to co-contracting airlines — Market economy operator principle — Selectivity — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons)
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.01002601.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/26






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Volotea v Commission
(Case T-607/17) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Aid granted by Italy to Sardinian airports - Decision declaring the aid compatible in part and incompatible in part with the internal market - Whether imputable to the State - Recovery - Beneficiaries - Advantage to co-contracting airlines - Market economy operator principle - Selectivity - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Recovery - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons)
(2020/C 215/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Volotea, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Carpagnano and M. Nordmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, D. Grespan and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking 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 Volotea, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Case T-284/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark KENWELL — Earlier EU word mark KENWOOD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003902.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/39






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)
(Case T-284/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KENWELL - Earlier EU word mark KENWOOD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 215/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wonder Line, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 (Case R 1351/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between De Longhi Benelux and Wonder Line.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wonder Line, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (12362/2019– C9-0013/2020 — 2019/0182(NLE))
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Belarus, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, foreign national, ratification of an agreement








C_2021323EN.01002601.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 323/26






P9_TA(2020)0062
EU-Belarus Agreement on facilitation of issuance of visas ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (12362/2019– C9-0013/2020 — 2019/0182(NLE))
(Consent)
(2021/C 323/11)

The European Parliament,







—


having regard to the draft Council decision (12362/2019),










—


having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (12363/2019),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0013/2020),










—


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










—


having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0090/2020),












1.


Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Belarus.
Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2020 (OJ C 107, 31.3.2020)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: European Maritime Safety Agency
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts




C_2020165EN.01003001.xml










13.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/30






Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2020
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 107 of 31 March 2020
)
(2020/C 165/07)
On page 59, Establishment plan:
for:












‘Category and grade


Posts




2020


2019


2018




Permanent


Temporary


Permanent


Temporary


Permanent


Temporary






AD 16


—


—


—


—


—


—




AD 15


—


1 


—


1 


—


1 




AD 14


—


2 


—


1 


—


1 




AD 13


1 


4 


1 


4 


1 


4 




AD 12


1 


10 


1 


10 


1 


10 




AD 11


—


17 


—


14 


—


14 




AD 10


1 


20 


1 


19 


1 


19 




AD 9


—


40 


—


28 


—


28 




AD 8


—


31 


—


31 


—


29 




AD 7


—


18 


—


26 


—


26 




AD 6


—


3 


—


8 


—


12 




AD 5


—


3 


—


7 


—


5 




Total grade AD


3 


149 


3 


149 


3 


149 






AST 11


—


—


—


—


—


—




AST 10


—


1 


—


1 


—


1 




AST 9


—


—


—


—


—


—




AST 8


—


3 


—


1 


—


1 




AST 7


—


8 


—


4 


—


4 




AST 6


—


20 


—


19 


—


15 




AST 5


—


18 


—


20 


—


20 




AST 4


—


10 


—


12 


—


16 




AST 3


—


—


—


3 


—


3 




AST 2


—


—


—


—


—


—




AST 1


—


—


—


—


—


—




Total grade AST


—


60 


—


60 


—


60 







Grand total




3 




209 




3 




209 




3 




209 








Total staff




212 




212 




212 ’





read:












‘Category and grade


Posts




2020


2019


2018




Permanent


Temporary


Permanent


Temporary


Permanent


Temporary






AD 16


—


—


—


—


—


—




AD 15


—


1 


—


1 


—


1 




AD 14


—


2 


—


2 


—


1 




AD 13


1 


4 


1 


4 


1 


4 




AD 12


1 


10 


1 


10 


1 


10 




AD 11


—


17 


—


17 


—


14 




AD 10


1 


20 


1 


16 


1 


19 




AD 9


—


40 


—


33 


—


28 




AD 8


—


31 


—


27 


—


31 




AD 7


—


18 


—


24 


—


26 




AD 6


—


3 


—


10 


—


8 




AD 5


—


3 


—


5 


—


7 




Total grade AD


3 


149 


3 


149 


3 


149 






AST 11


—


—


—


—


—


—




AST 10


—


1 


—


1 


—


1 




AST 9


—


—


—


—


—


—




AST 8


—


3 


—


1 


—


1 




AST 7


—


8 


—


6 


—


4 




AST 6


—


20 


—


17 


—


19 




AST 5


—


18 


—


20 


—


20 




AST 4


—


10 


—


12 


—


12 




AST 3


—


—


—


3 


—


3 




AST 2


—


—


—


—


—


—




AST 1


—


—


—


—


—


—




Total grade AST


—


60 


—


60 


—


60 







Grand total




3 




209 




3 




209 




3 




209 








Total staff




212 




212 




212 ’
Case T-5/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Clatronic International v EUIPO (PROFI CARE) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PROFI CARE — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, decorative item, electronic device, food processing, hand tool, household electrical appliance, measuring equipment, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003501.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/35






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Clatronic International v EUIPO (PROFI CARE)
(Case T-5/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark PROFI CARE - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2020/C 215/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 504/2018-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PROFI CARE.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Clatronic International GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 12 May 2020 2020/C 164/04
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020164EN.01001601.xml










13.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/16






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 May 2020
(2020/C 164/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0858 




JPY


Japanese yen


116,56 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4577 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87773 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5968 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0520 




ISK


Iceland króna


158,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,0518 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,423 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,75 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5449 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8301 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,5979 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6625 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5178 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4154 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7742 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5357 




KRW


South Korean won


1 326,17 




ZAR


South African rand


19,7382 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6933 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5653 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 073,64 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6977 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,388 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,4157 




THB


Thai baht


34,854 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2708 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,8251 




INR


Indian rupee


81,5930 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-381/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO — Gameloft (City Mania) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark City Mania — Earlier EU word mark City Lights — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic game, recording medium, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01004101.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/41






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO — Gameloft (City Mania)
(Case T-381/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark City Mania - Earlier EU word mark City Lights - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 215/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gameloft SE (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 (Case R 976/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Gameloft.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case T-534/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Peek — 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, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003202.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)
(Case T-534/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek - 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 215/39)
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 31 May 2018 (Case R 115/2005-1), 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 392, 29.10.2018.
Case T-288/20: Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Brillux and Daw v Commission
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, classification, dangerous substance, labelling, oxide, principle of proportionality, public health








C_2020222EN.01003901.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/39






Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Brillux and Daw v Commission
(Case T-288/20)
(2020/C 222/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) and Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. van der Hout, C. Wagner and V. Lemonnier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217, (1) in so far as it concerns the classification and labelling of titanium dioxide;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-279/20, CWS Powder Coatings v Commission.


(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 of 4 October 2019 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures and correcting that Regulation (OJ 2020 L 44, p. 1).
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and Ukraine (06101/2020 — C9-0091/2020 — 2020/0016(NLE))
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: Ukraine, cooperation agreement (EU), renewal of an agreement, scientific cooperation, technology








C_2021323EN.01002401.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 323/24






P9_TA(2020)0060
Renewal of the EU-Ukraine Agreement on cooperation in science and technology ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and Ukraine (06101/2020 — C9-0091/2020 — 2020/0016(NLE))
(Consent)
(2021/C 323/09)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (06101/2020),










—


having regard to the Council Decision 2003/96/EC of 6 February 2003 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine (1),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0091/2020),










—


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 Industry, Research and Energy (A9-0095/2020),












1.


Gives its consent to the renewal of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Ukraine.






(1)  OJ L 36, 12.2.2003, p. 31.